...Field Road: Lights off at appointed time. Mason Road yard: We intended to, employee assigned task...

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, June 21, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AMENDED AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

COMMUNICATIONS

2. Earth Hour - Memorandum (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX A Pages 1 - 2

3. Chuck Anderson, Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations re: Old Growth Management Area, dated May 1, 2012 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX B pp 3 - 5

4. Terry and Caroline Clark re: Wilson Creek Forest – SCCF’s Cutblock EW002, dated May 18, 2012 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX C pp 6

5. INSERT Deborah K. Lovett, Lovett Westmacott re: Water Licenses in Jervis Inlet, dated June 20, 2012

(Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX CC pp 6 a-b

REPORTS

6. Summary of the May 25, 2012 Meeting of the Howe Sound Community Forum (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX D pp 7 - 12

7.

ANNEX E pp 13 - 14

8. REPLACE Renewing the Energy Rebate Program –dated June 8, 2012

ANNEX F pp 15 – 16 a-b

9. Development Permit with a Variance D-111 (Matheson) Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX G pp 17 - 29

10. Rezoning and OCP Amendment Referral from Islands Trust regarding Camp Fircom Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX H pp 30 - 37

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, June 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3

11. Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142 (Gidora’s Farm) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX I pp 38 - 46 INSERT pp 46 a-b

12. Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones Electoral Areas A,B,D,E,F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX J pp 47 - 54

13. REPLACE Highway 101 Music Festival Temporary Liquor Licence Application (pages 55 & 56 only) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX K pp 55 - 71

14. ADD Acoustic Panel Upgrade Gibsons’ Area Community Centre Award

ANNEX KK pp 71 a – b

15. Planning and Development Monthly Report for May, 2012 (Regional/Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX L pp 72 - 78

16. Building Division Statistics for May, 2012

ANNEX M pp 79 - 83

17. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of May 30, 2012 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX N pp 84 - 85

18. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of May 22, 2012 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX O pp 86 - 88

19. REPLACE Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of May 28, 2012 (Heading, location & date missing from original document) Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX P pp 89 – 90

20. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of May 23, 2012 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Q pp 91 - 94

BYLAWS

21. OCP/Zoning Bylaw Amendments Nos. 325.19 and 310.134 (Jorgens) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX R pp 95 - 104

22. Bylaw 337.101 – Consideration of First Reading (Klassen for Newton) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX S pp 105 - 115

23. Bylaw 310.135 (Morrissey) Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX T pp 116 - 122

24. Bylaw 310.141 –(West Howe Sound Implementation Bylaw) Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX U pp 123 - 134

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, June 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3 IN CAMERA

THAT the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with the Community Charter, Section 90 (1) (e) “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; …” are to be discussed.

ADJOURNMENT

Memorandum

To: SCRD Chair, Directors and John France, CAO

From: Susan Hunt

Date: May 1, 2012

Re: Earth Hour 2012

This year Earth Hour was held on March 31st from 8:30 – 9:30 pm. Lights were scheduled to be turned off at the buildings and facilities as follows:

Field Road: Lights off at appointed time.

Mason Road yard: We intended to, employee assigned task had personal issues arise the prevented turn off.

SAC: Lights out at SAC at 7:45 pm back on at 10:00 pm

GDAF: Lights out at GDAF at 8:20 pm back on at 9:30 pm

GACC: Lights out by 8:30 pm not sure of exact time check lights back on.

Sechelt Arena: Sports event in progress – lights on

An estimated 5% reduction in Sechelt is what we have at this point. No data for Gibsons. Thanks, Susan

1

ANNEX A

80808080

Value

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Hour of the Day (PST)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Communities Hourly Data (Mar31st,2012)Region: -- Community: Sechelt

BC Hydro Load Analysis Sunday, April 1st, 2012

ActualForecast

2

BRITISHCOLUMBL\

File: 12500 20/Chapman LU

May 1, 2012

Garry Nohr, ChairSunshine Coast Regional District1975 Field RoadSechelt, British ColumbiaVON 3A1

Dear Garry Nohr:

M?T FILE COPY

AEIVED

Lr

RECEIVED

MAY 1 4 2012

CHAIR

Thank you for your letter dated March 29, 2012 regarding the Old Growth Management Area(OGMA) amendment process underway in the vicinity of Mount Elphinstone. The SunshineCoast District is currently reviewing the amendment request made by BC Timber Sales andwe are currently in discussions with their staff regarding their proposal.

Chuck Anderson, R.P.F.Stewardship/Tenures ForesterSunshine Coast District

Ministry of Forests, Lands andNatural Resource Operations

Sunshine Coast District Mailing Address:7077 Duncan StreetPowell River BC V8A IWI

ULJ

Tel: (604) 4850700Fax: (604) 485-0799

3

ANNEX B

Sunshine Coast Regional District1975 Field Road P 604.885.6800Sechelt, British Columbia F 604.885.7909 [email protected] VON 3A1 Toll free 1.800.687.5753 www.scrd.ca

March 29, 2012

MarkAnderson via email: Mark.E.Andersontgov.bc.caForest District Manager I

Sunshine Coast Forest District7077 Duncan StreetPowell River, BC V8A1W1

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Re: New OGMA Nominee’s on Mt. Elphinstone

The Sunshine Coast Regional District recently was informed that BC Timber Sales hadremoved three blocks from their operating plans on Mt. Elphinstone and have nominatedthem as OGMA candidates. The Regional District Board supports this proposal and made thefollowing resolution at their February 23id meeting respecting this:

086/12 THAT a letter be sent to the District Manager, Sunshine Coast ForestDistrict, copied to B C Timber Sales, expressing appreciation for B C TimberSales’ recommendation to set aside blocks A84612 WC022 and WC045near Dakota Ridge and AGO42C16Y which lies within the “horseshoe” ofone of the Mt. Elphinstone Provincial Parks and encouraging the DistrictManager to grant the request;

AND THAT the letter be copied to Nicholas Simons, MM.

Over many years, the Regional District has informed the Ministry of Forests of thecommunity’s concern and opposition to Block AGO42C16Y which is adjacent to Mt.Elphinstone Park. The Regional District supports the nomination of this block as an OGMAcandidate as it will help the integrity of the Mt. Elphinstone Park forest ecosystem. Ourconcern that the edge effects of harvesting compromising the mushroom habitat and lowelevation terrestrial ecosystem within the park will have been relieved with the OGMAdesignation over Block AGO42C16Y.

Designating Blocks A84612WC022 and WC045 near Dakota Ridge as OGMA candidates arealso supported by the Regional District. Mt. Elphinstone is a very productive forest base andthe yellow cedar forest within these blocks have been used by the community for theharvesting of non-timbered forest products for many years.

ELECTORAL AREAS A - Egmont, Pender Harbour B - l-lalfrnoon Bay D. Roberts Crsek E * Elphihstorie F- West Howe SoundMUNICIPALITIES: District of Sechelt / Sechelt Indian Government District / Town of Gibsons

4

New OGMA Nominee’s on Mt. Elphinstone Page 2

The Regional District looks forward to hearing how the Sunshine Coast Forest District is handlingthese three blocks on Mt. Elphinstone.

Regar s,

Garry NohrChairSunshine Coast Regional District

Cc: Nicholas Simon, MLA

/tfN:\Planning & Development\6660 Forest Development\6660-O1General\2Ol2Mar2glettertoMOFjiewoGMAnomlneesMtElphbistone.docx

-

—

-. .--.-,

itA,

—J 4U—-.

•1—5

Susan Hunt

Subject FW Wilson Creek Forest

IRECE1VED

j MAY25 2012Original Message CHFrom: Caroline Clark [mailto:tcmclarkt8dccnet.com]

Sent: May-18-12 5:28 PMTo: councilsechelt. caCc: Doug.Konkingov.bc.ca; council0sechelt.ca; John Henderson; “Doug Hockley”; “Tom Lamb”;Alice Lutes; “Chris Moore”; “Mike Shanks”; “Darnelda Siegers”; scpi(0telus.net; SCRD GeneralInquiries; infosechelt.ca; “donna shugar”; Forests.ExecutiveDivisionOfficegov.bc.ca;FLNRO.MediaReguests(ãlgov.bc.ca; Forests.SunshineCoastDistrictOffice(gov.bc.ca;env . ministergov. bc. caSubject: Wilson Creek Forest

Dear Mayor and Council,

re. Wilson Creek ForestSCCF’s Cutblock EWØO2

I understand that Community Forests ( SCCF) is planning to log this forest in the nearfuture.

I am writing to recommend that the Council pass a motion opposing this plan, and preservethis forest in tact for present and future generations to enjoy. This is a beautiful neverlogged forest which has dozens of old- growth trees, some of which are at least 4 or 5hundred years old. Some of the trees measure over 7 feet in diameter and can never bereplaced. The forest is above Wilson creek which is used for spawning by both trout andsalmon. There are a number of other reasons for preserving this forest and I dont need torepeat what others have brought to your attention.

My wife and I live on Lockyer Rd. in Roberts Creek about 5 minutes drive from this forest,and have hiked there many times and are very familiar with the area.

What I would like to suggest is that the Council decide how much revenue will be generatedfor the community by this logging, and then give the Roberts Creek and Sunshine Coastcommunity the opportunity to raise this amount so that the tax payers of Sechelt will not beburdened with a loss. There are many individuals and organizations(eg.Elphinstone Logging Focus) who would gladly take on the job of raising this money in exchangefor protecting this forest. I am also convinced that in the long run a forest such as thiscould be promoted by tourism to generate revenue for the entire Sunshine Coast.

Sincerely,

Terry and Caroline Clark

1

6

ANNEX C

ANNEX CC

6a

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee Meeting, June 21, 2012 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Summary of the May 25, 2012 Meeting of the Howe Sound Community Forum RECOMMENDATION THAT the Sunshine Coast Regional District send a copy of the staff report dated June 12, 2012 regarding the May 25th Howe Sound Community Forum to its members;

AND THAT the Regional District advise the Howe Sound Community Forum of the following recommendation made on May 25, 2012:

That the Howe Sound Community Forum consider a future meeting to discuss a concept of an aboriginal committee to address concerns, build relationships, share information and examine opportunities as well as discuss the membership composition of such a committee.

BACKGROUND In March 2012, the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board adopted a resolution to host a Howe Sound Community Forum (HSCF) to discuss the proposed aggregate mine in the McNab Creek valley by BURNCO. The Howe Sound Community Forum consists of elected representatives from the District of Squamish, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Squamish First Nation, District of West Vancouver, Gambier Island Local Trust Committee, Village of Pemberton, Metro Vancouver, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, Village of Lions Bay, Sunshine Coast Regional District, Bowen Island Municipality and the Town of Gibsons. The Forum was formalized in 2002 with the signing of the “Principles for Cooperation” document. On May 25th BURNCO arranged for a morning site visit at the proposed McNab Creek site. Access to the site was by water taxi. The Forum meeting continued at a formal meeting at the Gibsons and Area Community Centre. Meeting notes are attached (Attachment A). DISCUSSSION The morning group site visit consisted of Forum members, BURNCO staff/consultants and Regional District planning staff. The group was led by BRUNCO representatives through the site. Questions and discussions evolved as participants walked through the area. The first item discussed at the formal afternoon meeting was the revised Howe Sound Community Forum “Principles for Cooperation”. The Forum requested that SCRD Planning staff

7

ANNEX D

obtain a copy of the revised Howe Sound Community Forum “Principles for Cooperation” showing the changes in the document from the original. Staff are requested to distribute a “track changes” version to forum members with a request that each member organization receive the document, and adopt it by resolution. Planning staff have a copy of revised changes and will be distributing the document later in June. The next item discussed was BURNCO’s proposed aggregate mine. Derek Holmes, Project manager for BURNCO provided an overview of the project. He and other BURNCO representatives responded to a variety of issue specific comments and questions. For example questions respecting jobs, dust control, apprenticeship sponsorship programs, Environmental Assessment process, reclamation, visual impacts, need for the McNab Creek site; overburden stockpile, and community benefits were discussed. The last item discussed was an alternative to the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC). The HSCF proposed the following recommendation:

That the Howe Sound Community Forum consider a future meeting to discuss a concept of an aboriginal committee to address concerns, build relationships, share information and examine opportunities as well as discuss the membership composition of such a committee.

CONCLUSION Staff suggest that the Regional District send a copy of this staff report to the Howe Sound Community Forum members and advise Forum members of the May 25th recommendation. ____________________________ Teresa Fortin Planner

8

Howe Sound Community Forum Notes

Meeting hosted by the Sunshine Coast Regional District May 25, 2012 8:30 am – 3:30 pm

Location: McNab Creek and Gibsons & Area Community Centre

Forum Members Present: Meeting Chair Garry Nohr, Chair, Sunshine Coast Regional District

Frank Mauro, Director Electoral Area A, Sunshine Coast Regional District Dave Ryan, Alternate Director Electoral Area D, Sunshine Coast Regional District Lorne Lewis, Director Area E, Sunshine Coast Regional District Lee Turnbull, Director Electoral Area F, Sunshine Coast Regional District Alice Lutes, Councillor, District of Sechelt Lee Ann Johnson, Councillor, Town of Gibsons Brenda Broughton, Mayor Village of Lions Bay (meeting only) Joanne Ronsley, Councillor, Village of Lions Bay Kate Stamford, Trustee, Gambier Island Trust Andree Janyk, Councillor, Resort Municipality of Whistler (site visit only)

Also Present: Troy Speedie, McNab Creek Estates Strata representative

Ruth Simons, Village of Lions Bay representative & Sea 2 Sky Clean Air Society (site visit only) Mike Powell, President, BURNCO Darren Kelm, Property Manager, BURNCO Derek Holmes, Operations Manager, BURNCO Melanie Gaboriault, Communications Director for BURNCO Mark Johannes, Golder Associates, Environmental Lead for project John France, CAO, Sunshine Coast Regional District (meeting only) Paul Fenwick, General Manager Community Services, Sunshine Coast Regional District (meeting only) Steve Olmstead, General Manager Planning and Development, Sunshine Coast Regional District Sharon Heppner, Manager of Information Technology, Sunshine Coast Regional District (meeting only) Teresa Fortin, Planner, Sunshine Coast Regional District Four other BURNCO staff/consultants (site visit only)

Site Visit 8:30 am – 12:45 pm BURNCO arranged a water taxi from the public dock to take those interested to visit their property at McNab Creek. The group was led by BRUNCO representatives through the site. Questions and discussions evolved as participants walked through the area. Break for Lunch 12:45 – 1:15 pm

9

Meeting Called to Order 1:15pm Agenda Adopted Revised Howe Sound Community Forum “Principles for Cooperation”

SCRD Planning staff are requested to obtain a copy of the revised Howe Sound Community Forum “Principles for Cooperation” showing the changes in the document from the original. Staff are requested to distribute a “track changes” version to forum members with a request that each member organization receive the document, and adopt it by resolution.

Summary of BURNCO presentation and questions

BURNCO: Derek Holmes, Project manager for BURNCO provided an overview of the project. He and other BURNCO representatives responded to a variety of issue specific comments and questions, as follows:

• Jobs Twelve full time jobs anticipated; operating normal working hours: M-F 7am-5pm. Twelve workers give capacity 1 million – 1.6 million tonnes...max 4 million tonnes full capacity, could create need for a second shift. Camp will have on-site caretaker. BURNCO wants to draw employees from the Sunshine Coast. There are numerous other support/spin off jobs. For example: water taxi, reforestation, professional foresters, brochures printed on Sunshine Coast

• Dust control BURNCO uses wet water sprays, proprietary dust enclosures for processing facility, no fans.

• Apprenticeship sponsorship program in BC? BURNCO noted that it is developing in house positions. Trying to train and retain younger workers.

• Environmental assessment: harmonized Prov/Fed assessment. BURNCO is in the process of submitting the draft “Application Information Requirements” application (a formal project information document) to the Environmental Assessment Office. The document will include information requirements: key factors that will build the environmental assessment. There will be an opportunity for the public to review this document.

• Reclamation BURNCO will be required to remove infrastructure after cessation of mining operations. Berms around the lake. No planned used of flocculants (used to precipitate fine matter in water suspension).

• Visual impacts Concern was expressed about the potential for significant visual impacts of the property for strata residents, Lions Bay and travelers on the Sea to Sky Highway. BURNCO responded by noting the significant treed buffer along the ocean that would be retained and that a full visual

10

impact assessment would be undertaken as part of the EA process. A question was also made regarding light pollution at night”. BURNCO confirmed it would implement dark sky polices.

• A comment was made about the provincial gravel pit in Lions Bay. Noise source for residents and a scar on the landscape.

• Concerns were raised about: o The impact on the community (strata) if there is an increase capacity to 4 million tonnes. o Impact on marine environment – water will fill in lake, how does this interact with Howe

Sound as it is slowly recovering? o The Environmental Assessment process and how it deals with barge traffic impacts. o Mine reclamation.

With respect to noise issues, BURNCO indicated it will try modelling and monitoring sound. BURNCO is monitoring the ground water system to understand groundwater movement and anticipate possible impacts.

• BURNCO talked about examples of parks made from gravel pits in Calgary. • A question was raised about whether the McNab Creek area. What did it look like before the

industrial use? Will DFO/BURNCO be remediating existing channel to deal with silt? BURNCO stated that it would eventually build a new ground water channel system.

• A concern was noted that the number of jobs created won’t balance out the impact on Howe Sound.

• A concern was noted that the value of Howe Sound as an international class tourism resource far exceeded the value for industrial use.

• Question/comment was made regarding the availability of gravel resources elsewhere. Why does BURNCO need this site? BURNCO noted that few aggregate sites have tidal water access. It is obtaining gravel from north Vancouver Island – a 280 km trip to the plant facility on the Fraser River. The McNabb site would greatly lower GHG emissions for BURNCO’s operation due to significant reductions in transportation.

• A comment was made that there is little information about the overburden stockpile. Height/longevity/how much material? BURNCO noted that they believe there to be approximately 1m of overburden around site (haven’t calculated amount/height). A silt mix with topsoil to spread will be used on site as part of the mine reclamation. The overburden pile won’t continue to grow – all the material will be usable.

• A statement was made that Gambier Island is not seeing any benefit from this proposal. Ten children’s camps in area (visually). BURNCO indicated it was agreeable to considering some form of amenity.

• BURNCO indicated that another site visit possible if requested. • BURNCO will initiate its rezoning application soon.

11

Troy Speedie, Mike Powell, Darren Kelm, Derek Holmes, Melanie Gaboriault and Mark Johannes left the meeting @ 2:30 pm. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC)

• What is the next phase? With the dissolution of LMTAC, the SCRD and SLRD don’t have formal pathway to Federal Government processes and treaty tables.

• Is there something new local governments can do? • What if we all had an organization and sat together to talk – not separate. • In SCRD closer working relationships with the Squamish Nation is desired. • Islands Trust is working to build relationships – 20 First Nation groups get Islands Trust referrals

now.

1. Recommendation: That the Howe Sound Community Forum consider a future meeting to discuss a concept of an aboriginal committee to address concerns, build relationships, share information and examine opportunities as well as discuss the membership composition of such a committee.

Concluding Remarks

The Village of Lions Bay offered to host next Howe Sound Community Forum.

Kate Stamford to give SCRD Planning staff, contact information for Bowen Island.

Meeting Adjourned @ 3:30 pm

N:\Administration\0400 Cooperation & Liaison - General\0400-60 Other Local Governments\Howe Sound Community Forum\2012 May 25 HSCF notes.docx

12

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5288 Community Energy & Emissions Projects\5288-20 Sustainability Projects\Energy Rebate Program\Renewing the Energy Rebate Program.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 8, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – June 21, 2012

FROM: Johan Stroman, Community Energy Manager

RE: RENEWING THE ENERGY REBATE PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Community Energy Manager’s report entitled “RENEWING THE ENERGY REBATE PROGRAM” be received for information; AND THAT the Sunshine Coast Regional District Building Bylaw No. 535, 2004 be amended in section B.1(17) f.) to read:

This Section is deemed to be in force from the date of adoption to June 30, 2015.

AND THAT section B.1(17) a.) include: x. Heat Return Ventilator (HRV) xi. Photovoltaic, Wind, Micro-hydro or Fuel Cell net metering power generation (1 kW)

BACKGROUND The Sunshine Coast Regional District Building Bylaw No. 535, 2004 was amended to incorporate discounts to encourage energy conservation from the date of the adoption July 14, 2011 until June 30, 2012. In addition to a small increase in building permit fees in 2011 to help offset additional costs associated with this program, staff sought and secured $5,000 funding from FortisBC. Program implementation included advertisements, printed brochures, application forms and information coordination to answer applicant questions and track applications. Community interest began in late Fall 2011 and steady phone calls and counter requests continued in early spring 2012 with positive feedback and interest. Three dozen requests for information regarding the energy conservation program have been received by staff. Several of these have led to submissions and applications and retrofits and/or new home construction is underway. A Coast Reporter article featured a Halfmoon Bay retrofit of one of the community halls. The program received high interest at the CCBA June 9th Home Show with over 200 visitors to the SCRD booth. Section B.1(17) a.) currently does not include Heat Return Ventilators (HRVs) or renewable electricity energy technology. With the current language in place several potential applicants have been turned away because specific installations of HRVs and Renewable Energy installations were not specified in the bylaw. In addition, the remaining program funds exceeds anticipated commitments. Extending the time of implementation beyond the initial section B.1(17) f.) June 30, 2012 date would encourage further uptake and generate more community based energy savings and emissions reductions.

ANNEX F

15

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Regarding Renewing the Energy Rebate Program Page 2 of 2

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5288 Community Energy & Emissions Projects\5288-20 Sustainability Projects\Energy Rebate Program\Renewing the Energy Rebate Program.doc

DISCUSSION Municipal based building energy policy work is underway in municipalities across the province (including City of North Vancouver, Saanich, Nanaimo, Dawson Creek and the Capital Regional District). This policy work helps extend savings not yet available under provincial building code, while also demonstrating leadership and modelling desirable approaches to reduce energy costs to homeowners and developers. The Energy Rebate Program was featured at provincial level conference in Vancouver in October 2011 and generated considerable interest and support from other municipalities. Recommendations from attendees included extending both the time limit and adding other relevant leading energy saving technologies to the program. Similar Distributive policy work in BC municipalities has demonstrated that following adoption of new energy policy, community awareness and interest takes roughly one year to generate measurable uptake. Research on incentive programs indicates that energy policy with most reach has a multi-year lifespan, is continuous in implementation and coheres well with concurrent rebate programs. The addition of HRVs and Renewable Energy technologies to the Energy Rebate program would align it with the Provincial LiveSmart program currently in effect. In our wet climate, HRVs also provide an additional health benefit. With a higher than provincial average of baseboard heated homes, Sunshine Coast homes are more subject to poor ventilation and potential mold issues associated with asthma and other respiratory challenges. Inclusion of renewable energy technologies aligns well with the Renewable Energy Atlas Project recommendations, encouraging businesses and homeowners to adopt these technologies on the Sunshine Coast. As of June 7th, staff estimates a commitment of under $1,000 in building permit rebates under this program. If the bylaw is not amended near the end of June 2012, the Energy Rebate Program may terminate without the benefit of a sufficient time period to generate update and allow for implementation. Funding towards outreach and education for the Energy Rebate program has already been identified and offered by FortisBC for 2012-2013. The following options have been identified by staff. None of these options impact SCRD’s operating budget. The limiting factor for the program’s continuation is the sunset date. Option 1: Amend Section B.1(17) a.) to include HRVs and Renewable Electricity energy technologies. Extend Section B.1(17) f.) to June 30, 2015 subject to available funding. A report to be brought to board annually to summarize financial implications and program uptake. Option 2: Amend Section B.1(17) a.) to include HRVs and Renewable Electricity energy technologies. Extend Section B.1(17) f.) to June 30, 2013. A report will be brought to Board in June 2013 to summarize financial implications and program uptake. Option 3: Bylaw sunsets June 30, 2012 (not recommended).

16

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

BYLAW NO. 535.6

A bylaw to amend Sunshine Coast Regional District BuildingBylaw No. 535, 2004 to provide for discounts to encourage energy conservation

The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled,enacts as follows:

1. This bylaw may be cited as Sunshine Coast Regional District Building AmendmentBylaw No. 535.6,2011.

2. Sunshine Coast Regional District Building Bylaw No. 535, 2004 is hereby amended asfollows:

a) Insert a new Section B.1(17) as follows:

B.1.(17) Eco Energy Discount

Where a permit is required, a discount from the building permit fee otherwisepayable shall be available to promote energy conservation as outlined in this bylaw.

a.) For a building permit that includes the installation of any one or more of thefollowing:

i. Upgrade to energy star windowsii. Upgrade to R40 attic

iii. Upgrade to R20 wallsiv. Solar hot water heaterv. Roof photo voltaicsvi. Air to Air Heat Pump / ductless split

vii. High efficiency furnace (renovations only)viii. Ultra high efficiency furnace (new construction only)

ix. Geothermal system

with a construction value of $50,000 or more, the building permit fee that wouldotherwise be payable shall be discounted by $150, subject to a ‘pre’ and ‘post’inspection; or

with a construction value less than $50,000 the building permit fee that wouldotherwise be payable shall be discounted by $100, subject to a ‘pre’ and ‘post’installation inspection.

16a

“Sunshine Coast Regional District Building Amendment Bylaw No. 535.6, 2011” Page 2

b.) In concert with a home energy assessment, and with a valid Ener-Guide ratingcertificate (blower test required) completed to the satisfaction of the BuildingInspector, the building permit fee that would otherwise be payable shall bediscounted as follows:

i. EG83+ $150ii. EG8O-82 $100

iii. EG 75-79 $50

c.) Only one discount will be applied per permit issued.

d.) Permits where no fee is payable are not eligible for the discount program.

e.) Discounts will be applied upon confirmation of successful completion of project,such that the full building permit fee shall be paid at the time of application for abuilding permit and any discount available under (a) or (b) above shall bereturned to the applicant, without interest, upon completion of all inspectionsrequired under this Bylaw and confirmation of entitlement to the Eco Energydiscount.

f.) This Section is deemed to be in force from the date of adoption to June 30, 2012.

READ A FIRST TIME this 23d day of June, 2011

READ A SECOND TIME this 23d day of June, 2011

READ A THIRD TIME this 23rd day of June, 2011

ADOPTED this 1 day of July, 2011

OFFICER

CHAIR

16b

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 6, 2012

TO: Planning and Development Committee – June 21, 2012

FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats – Planning Technician, Planning & Development Division

RE: Development Permit with a Variance Application D-111 for a retaining wall

RECOMMENDATION(S):

1. THAT the report titled Development Permit with a Variance Application D-111 for a retaining wall” and dated June 6, 2012 be received;

2. AND THAT Development Permit with a Variance D-111 be approved, as per the attached Draft Development Permit, and issued subject to:

a. Receipt of Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure comments and conditions; and

b. Receipt of Squamish Nation comments or expiry of comment period. BACKGROUND The Regional District received an application to vary Section 507(a)(f) and 1000.5(1) of SCRD Bylaw No. 310 to relax the minimum required watercourse setback from 15 metres to 0 metres and to relax the minimum required front parcel line setback from 5 metres to 2.53 metres to permit an already built retaining wall within the front property line setback. OWNER/APPLICANT: Deacon Lee Matheson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 14 District Lot 904 Plan 4213, PID 011-749-458 ELECTORAL AREA: D LOCATION: 1815 Sunshine Coast Highway, Roberts Creek, BC ZONE: CR1 PROPOSED VARIANCE: To relax the watercourse setback from 15m to 0.0m and to relax the front parcel

line setback from 5m to 2.53m for an already built retaining wall. PARCEL AREA: 2.29 ha

17

ANNEX G

DISCUSSION Site Description The subject lot is located two lots west of the Seaview Cemetery, between Lower Road and the Sunshine Coast Highway, and is accessed by the Sunshine Coast Highway. The lot is mostly cleared, with a tree patch along the east lot line. The lot steadily slopes down towards Lower Road. The owners intended to build the wall to manage erosion and storm water runoff affecting the lower portion of their property at Lower Road. The wall was built without a permit, is located within the front lot line setback and right up to a ditch, and is 3.75 metres at its maximum height. Walls within the front lot line setback are limited to 2.0 metres in height and there is a 15m watercourse setback that applies to ditches as well. As a result, the owners are applying for a variance to legalize the location and height of their existing retaining wall.

18

Figure 1: Existing retaining wall OCP Policies The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (OCP) identifies a stream riparian assessment area along either side of all creeks as Development Permit Area #15, which the subject lot falls within. The OCP provides guidelines for development occurring within these areas, including a Riparian Area Regulation report completed by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) supporting the proposed development. Because the stream has already been filled in and the wall has already been built, a formal Riparian Area Regulation report cannot be filed with the Province, and a letter from a QEP must suffice. Penalties The Planning Department penalty for construction without a permit is a double application fee and sometimes a Notice on Title. In this case, the development is in a Development Permit Area and the applicants are requesting a Variance, so the normally $650 application fee is doubled to $1300. The owners have paid the double fee and are continuing the process to try to receive a variance.

19

Qualified Professional Comments The applicants had a geotechnical assessment completed (see Attachment A) for their wall after it was built, and it was concluded that the continuity of surface drainage across the lot is maintained; the surface and groundwater flow from the lot upslope from the wall is safely transmitted past the wall and follows the general drainage pattern than existed prior to construction of the wall; and the wall does not impede local drainage. The owners are in the process of completing a Landslide Assessment to determine what the geotechnical occurrence probability is. A Qualified Environmental Professional submitted a letter (see Attachment B) indicating that the wall was built at the mouth of what used to be a tributary of Whittacker Creek, but which was filled in during the clearing of the site. The QEP states that the need for the retaining wall at this location is caused by the filling in of the creek and raising the level of land to what used to be the Top of Bank level to the east and west. He also points out that removal of the wall would serve little purpose from a fish habitat point of view as the previously existing stream is no longer available and cannot be restored to its previous state and location. The QEP recommends that the SCRD adopt a 10m setback along the Lower Road lot boundary and re-vegetate using suitable native plant species with a two year maintenance obligation to protect the fish habitat along the ditch and prevent invasive species vegetating the area. Consultation This application has been referred to the SCRD Building Department, the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission (APC), the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI), the Squamish Nation and neighbours within 100 metres for their comment. The MOTI and comments have not yet been received. The Building Department provided the following comments:

The owners applied for a building permit after being contacted by the Bylaw Compliance Officer, after the wall was constructed. Forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission – and according to the QEP report, “removal of the wall based on fish habitat considerations under current conditions serves little purpose from a fish point of view as the previously existing stream is no longer available and cannot be restored to its previous state and location.” Therefore, the Building Department recommends approval of the DVP.

The Roberts Creek APC made the following motions:

MOTION: The APC supports the application for a variance as recommended by SCRD Staff Report dated May 28, 2012, page 4 of 4. (TG/DG) M/S/Carried, seven to two with SG and HC opposed and one abstention. Chair’s comment: The vote in favor of the variance is not a vote of approval, but is a resignation to the opinion that there may be more harm to the environment by

20

removal of the wall than leaving it stand (based on the recommendation from the SCRD Building Department and the letters from the geotechnical engineer and the QEP from Geotactics Media Engineering). MOTION: The APC supports the suggestion in Paul van Poppelen’s report (Geotactics Media Engineering), page 2, paragraph 2, dated 15 December 2011, that a full riparian assessment of the creek be undertaken before any additional development is allowed within the normal riparian setback of the creek in the ditch. (KG/SG) M/S/Carried unanimously

The Squamish Nation provided the following comments:

It seems that it is hard to regulate what homeowners are doing even if a municipality has a by-law or protection in place. At this time it seems there is not much that can be done to restore the habitat if it was previously damaged.

Neighbours have not submitted any formal written comments, although a couple neighbours came in and commented that the SCRD should not approve any structures built without permits. SUMMARY This application is to relax the front lot line setback to permit an already built retaining wall, which was built without a permit for the purpose of managing erosion and storm water runoff. Planning staff recommend that this application be approved based on the Qualified Environmental Professional comments stating that removal of the wall will cause greater environmental damage to the riparian area. Therefore, planning staff recommend that this application for a variance be issued, subject to conditions within the attached Draft Development Permit (see Attachment C), which would legalize the existing retaining wall:

• To vary Section 507 (1)(f) of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 to relax the minimum required setback to the natural boundary of all other watercourses from 15 metres to 0 metres for an already built retaining wall; and

• To vary Section 1000.5 (1) of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 to relax the minimum required front parcel line setback from 5 metres to 2.53 metres for an already built retaining wall.

21

Project No.: SC-086November 17, 2O11

Gwen Matheson anfi Deacon Lowney

429 East 2gth Street

North Vancouver, V7NIE2GEOTACTICS MEDIA

‘ e-mail: d_Io [email protected] (2007) LTD.

INASSOCIA17ON kwnl: Dear: Ms. Mathescn and Mr. Lowney

METRO TESTING LABORATORIES LTD.Re: Geotechnical Impact of

Retaining VaII On Site DrainageMAILING ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 624 1815 Sunshine Coast Highway, Roberts Creek

Sechelt, B.C.VON 3A0

As requested, GoTacTics Media Engineering (2007) Ltd.LABORATORY: (GeoTacTics) visitel the site on November 3, 2011 to inspect the

#4-1877 Field Road Lock-block retainin wall recently built to support site grading fillWilson Creek, B.C. placed to level the bove-referenced property in Roberts Creek,

B.C. The site inspection included observations of the0.604.740.0920 geotechnical impaot of the retaining wall on site drainage.F. 604.740.0932 GeoTacTics did not provide an engineering design for the

E. myipmetrotestinq.ca retaining wall nor did we inspect the actual construction of thestacked rock retainirfig wall.

CONSULTING ENGINEERINGGEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS A ditch flows southerly across the property and joins the drainage

ditch along the north side of Lower Road where the drainageINSPECTION & TESTING ditch enters the culvert passing beneath Lower Road.

MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY At that time of the ite visit, it was observed that the Lock-blockretaining wall had been constructed across a poorly defined

OFFICES:drainage course that is fed, in part, by surface runoff from thedriveway off the Sunshine Coast Highway to the house near the• Abbotsfordsoutheast corner of the property. The Lock-block retaining wall

• Burnaby had been constructed about 6m (20 feet) north of the north edge• Fort St. John of pavement of Lower Road. The base of the retaining wall had• Kelowna been set back between 1.5 and 2m (5 and 7 feet) from the north

• Salmon Arm top of bank of the drainage ditch beside the road. The top of theretaining wall was is about 15m (50 feet) long and at maximum• Squamish (Sea to Sky) I

height the retaining wall is 5 rows of blocks (3.75m) high.• Sechelt (Sunshine Coast)

• Surrey

II• Williams Lake

• Red Deer (Alberta)

_____________________________

I

Servicing British Columbia’s Construction Industry Since 1987-—ttting.c

22

Impact of Retaining Wall on Site Drainage November 17, 20111815 Sunshine Coast Highway Project No.: SC-0886

In mitigation to potential disruption of site drainage by construction of the retaining wall, a drainagezone has been included behind the retaining wall to intercept surface runoff and groundwaterseepage which previously flowed directly to the drainage ditch along Lower Road and discharges thecollected water around the retaining wall back into its original channel.

Based on the observed conditions, the following conclusions are made:

1. The continuity of surface drainage across the property is maintained.2. The surface and groundwater flow from the property upsiope from the Lock-block retaining

wall is safely transmitted past the retaining wall and follows the general drainage pattern thatexisted prior to construction of the retaining wall.

3. The Lock-block retaining wall does not impede local drainage.

It is concluded that the construction of the Lock-block retaining wall does not alter the generaldrainage pattern across the southern part of the property. The potential for instability or flooding ofthe lower end of the property or the area beyond the southern end of the property is not increased bythe presence of the retaining wall.

We trust that this information meets your present requirements. If you should require additionalinformation, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours truly,

GeoTacTics Media Engineering (2007) Ltd.

M. M. Eivemark, M.Sc., P.Eng.Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Copyright 2011 Geo TacTics Media Engineering (2007) Ltd. Page 2 of 2

23

PHOTO 1: (Nov. 3, 2011) View looking northeast at Lock-blockretaining wall on north side of Lower Road. Retaining wall is setback about 6m from north edge of pavement. In front of the retainingwall (below level of road) is the concrete headwall for the drainageculvert passing under the road. South edge of site grading fill slopesup at 1 : 1 about 2.5m before levelling and continuing to rise at aflatter angle up to the Sunshine Coast Highway. The surface of thesite grading fill has been hydro-seeded.

24

GEOTACTiCS MEDIA ENGINEERING (2007) LTD.MaiUrtg Address: P.O. Box 624, Seche’t, B.C. VON 3A0OfficaiLaboratary: f14t 877 F’ed Road. Iis Creek, B.C.Ph: &4.740.0920 Fax: 6O..74D.C32

- —I

A “jMETH() TFSIIN(;LABORATORIES LTD. METRO

The subect retaining wall is currently located aongs’dc what appears f be a roadside ditch. Thisditch flows into \Vhittacker (‘reek. This creek must be assumed to be failing under the Riparian\regs Regulation unless proven not to be fish habitat. This would involve fishing out the entirejCfl2t of \Vhittackcr Creek from its mouth to its source north oli-h v 101 including the leedingwetland which is not only prohibilivety expens1’e hut potentially iatiie if ever only one (RARdeinedi tish is thund. \1oreo’ er this should he undertaken during the drier summer months to itaethe required validity. Thus the delimit “fish habitat” mut he adopted Ihr W tirtacker (‘reck.

Gi en tit Wiiiiaickcr C’reek then is a “stream” as defined under the RAW the d it ehe eiit intothis are also “streams” under the R-\R. and a [)e ciopmcnl Permit hr am. pre riach activity w I; Hr30m o ..he ditch is required.

A seen al problem is that the retaining wall is liem ed at the ma ud of’ hat used to be a ( wpc1and a tributar a 1\\ hittacker (‘reck but ‘ai:k’h iufi!Jcd in In’J;t I/a (!LLI/7fl, o1’i!: ‘fie

(‘\ fl ( atmet ing). ‘1 ic need ihr the retaining ‘vail nt this location is caused by the liii inc. in nit heand ra sing be le ci o the land to w lint used to he Ta p of Bank ic. e to the ewi and cs.

ithin 0ni of’this stream was asa subject to De ciopmeai Permit requii’ements and acuk.have resulted in a I Uni SPL’1 nnd tirervaiion of the wtuier course. Here ould hrn c been in

as lute prolubtt inn on nio ing or lii hag in cit he ruii otth:s \i tercoLrL, It wouki appear thoughthat Dd \ canpifleut Permit v as not tssued hr work within the vicinity a for tin the stream. nor w as ana ñich.l R\ t \sscssrncrlt ti cii v ith the \‘linistrv The matter was at tile rime 1’rouht to the at cnricOtt he SC RI) liv mysclf( as I was working an a proper: apposite die subteet OCOiiufl, tate Kirby

‘ subd hisian, anti noted the net h ides going on) l’ut un hbrtunntel late Iii iC proeeedins us thcclearing and ic-pro ill ing ark w as at the linci si uges a icon hetion. Tic SCR I) at tltc thnc Cii’SC to

not un her pursue I his. T am nh aw are a F w lictlwr the owners aithe. lane a the UfliC I liee :CI 1\ 1tIC

tcio tee tire the same as the eurreaL l\ ners o I ill nut cc’ntmel it on ihi thrthier.Inc hustecd iin h]i e\ist IHI SlilniliOli ‘ are Itti ITOi]i his but 1e diieh a R \I-L1ilne

5: cci: rennilits nicea. a krmal R \k Ases:neal was recu fred ir c ‘cs ‘ci ac t’ c•f. 1

r_r:c- :iai 1815 H iy t ‘a:c i ci 2

GEOTACTICS MEDIA ENGINEERING 12007) LTD- c

To:

Company: n/a

Gwen Matheson & Deacon Loviney Date:

Cc: Mike Elvemark

Cc:

Fax:

115 December2011

Email:

No. ofPages:Ph:

From:

2

Fax:Email:Fax:

Paul van Poppelen RPBIo CBiot

Ph:

Email:Fax:

Email:

Ph:

Subject: Retaining WaIl 1815 Hwy, Roberts Creek

604.740.0932 Ph: 1604,740.0920ypjerotesting ca

Project No.:

PLEASE CALL IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVING THIS DOCUMENT.Ths ,ensac oferc.’eC for toe coifideroia u$& of the Thdivoua. or cnti’ to w’iicli 1 :s aodress’ct ?r’y DisUiL’tio,, coo.’gscu&’c stria’ pmhbitcd. ft J3U Li.ve ‘ecevec ‘s ,ress e fri errc O(aSe n)fñ’ is I’ ‘7i9O!e2 &i !eepioiie arc? desrmy o

r:r,t!’e w(’oi’t makinq a cory Thauli you

SC-0886

25

, %GEOTACTICS MEDIA ENGINEERING (2007) LTD. IMaiUng Address; O,Q, Box 624, SeDhet. B.C. VON 3A0 LCQP’SLTD. METO

4 Office/Laboratory: #4-’877 ield Read, itscn Cr, B.C.Ph: Ce’.741O92O Fax: 604.740.0932

c;assLicatim: c,t’this ditch as “ditch” under the RR is tenuous and it cou,d be argued thai based on the RAR

(tCI1mtons it may wcl be a stream. ifelas’silicd as a ditch, thiS would have rculted in a minimum 5m SPR\(set,ack; mm the catch. Lfeassificd as a “siream’, the minimum SPII.\ woud be 1 (tin.

‘the : ahthur wafl is located w1LH:: what. would have been the SPFA under either assilcutior. From amt ot’vicv. removal o; tt’c wall asc’d on fish habbat1’onsidcrat:ons tmdcr current condi ions

little nut-nose f’rom a fish L);ta’. point ofvic’. as the previously existi: g sircaln is no knner ailaheand ni-ct. jO all irterts and nurposes. he restored to its previous sLate ano location. ‘this ‘.vc’u.d ncr taps have

beer an tior at the time when the initial works vcre being carried out (ahiioug in. was very late in tic stanc

of n.e nroeDT when n.hi was hnuehi To thor a: or:io::’t n1 the SCRI.) osu TO i-i) eUcn on this nauter.

s:iould t e SCR C) ecicie to ahow the ownerc to reIn in. the structure, a minimum 5 or Cn: SPFA v. on.: sepny, and any future worl within 3flm or’ the ditch r mains suiect to a l’cvana Assessment roceJure as thercsut oatt Assessment under the Detailed Assessment Procedure arc ztct :t: snLciiic. ‘the SPL’ (minimur,:

S or 1 tIm) is unike}v to channe under re—assessment, but the conditious under which work rr.ay(“\leasures” in the [)en.ai:ed .\ssessment procc’durc will. Hence ni-Assessment a was remains arcuurement.

Mv recIn eridn.lTors to the SCRD, ifaskee, nuld probably be to adopt a him from Ton of Ditch I3urkkSPF ao’:e the Lower i.caci properv “oundarv an actively re—vegetate Ins ucing sntrb!e nati

spees v hIt a two ear nialnienance obligation: to precnt this re_vccmnted strip liom Icing o.ue 1w

alien and iavasi’c distu:’hed—land type vegetation. No Rn.uro de’eloprncnn oukl e U1(”. ed\S’iThal :his him: any pronosed dceh p:nent including andsenping ‘ it hint ohtm I (Ifl Of l)iicb l4ar.. w’ I.

remain snbeet to a ardntoy R \k .\sscs men: filing.

We trust that this meets your current requirements. If you should ‘nave any concerns or :tuestions.

niesse do not hesitat.e to contact the author on 604 740 4907

Kind regards,

GeoTacTics Media Engineering (2007) Ltd.

Prepared by:

Put van DD?p&en RPo CBic

Envjrcnments, Services Mngr

SCt-nis r’i’c t15 Hoy. RC. .g?’tr’ 2

GEOTACTICS MEDIA ENGINEERING (2007) LTD.www lciranestflg C

26

TO: Deacon Matheson ADDRESS: 429 E 29th Street

North Vancouver, BC, V7N 1E2 This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of the Sunshine Coast Regional District applicable thereto, except those specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. This Development Permit Area #15 (Stream Riparian Assessment Areas) and #13 (Beach Front Ravine Slopes) applies to those lands within the Sunshine Coast Regional District described below:

Legal Description: Block 14 District Lot 904 Plan 4213 PID: 011-749-458 Civic Description: 1815 Sunshine Coast Highway 101

The lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this Permit and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit which shall form a part thereof. Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is varied or supplemented, and conditions and requirements pursuant to Section 920 of the Local Government Act are imposed in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan.

Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is specifically varied as follows:

Section 507 (1)(f) of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is varied to relax the minimum required setback to the natural boundary of all other watercourses from 15 metres to 0 metres for an already built retaining wall; and Section 1000.5 (1) of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is varied to relax the minimum required front parcel line setback from 5 metres to 0.0 metres for an already built retaining wall.

This Development Permit with a Variance for an already built retaining wall is issued subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions:

27

Prior to issuance Conditions:

(1) Receipt of Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure comments and conditions; (2) Receipt of Squamish Nation comments or expiration of comment period.

General Conditions:

(1) Adhere to the guidelines and recommendations in the report prepared by GeoTacTics Media Engineering (2007) Ltd., titled, “Retaining Wall 1815 Hwy, Roberts Creek” and dated 15 December, 2011, attached to and forming part of this permit as Appendix A, with particular attention given to:

i. Any future work (including landscaping) within 30m of the ditch is subject to a formal Riparian Areas Assessment.

ii. The area must be re-vegetated using suitable native plans species with a two-year maintenance obligation to prevent this area being colonized by non-native, invasive vegetation.

iii. No future development permitted within 10m of ditch.

(2) The Qualified Environmental Professional provides a final letter to confirm that all re-vegetation is consistent with standard practice and with Appendix A and this letter must be received to the satisfaction of the SCRD prior to SCRD approval of the final inspection for the retaining wall under Building Permit #xxxxx which is the subject of this Development Permit;

(3) Except as may be authorized by the Minister responsible for heritage conservation,

no person may damage, alter, or remove from a site any object, artifact, feature, material or other physical evidence of unknown origin that may be protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. In the event of finding a possible archaeological site or artifact immediately stop work and contact the Land Management Division, Squamish Nation (604-982-0510).

(4) The owner is responsible for ensuring that all constructed works under this Permit D-

111 are on the owner’s Land or receiving necessary approval from the Province of BC if the works are located on public foreshore land.

(5) Post a waterproof copy of the Development Permit (8.5" x 11" minimum) on the

development site for the duration of construction.

(6) The owner is responsible for ensuring that all construction and works carried out under this permit are on the owner’s land subject to this permit;

(7) The development is to be completed within two (2) years from issuance of the date of this Development Permit.

(8) If the Permittee does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within

28

six (6) months of the date of this permit, this Development Permit shall lapse. Except as specifically provided above, this Development Permit with a Variance in no way relieves the owner or occupier of the responsibility of adhering to all other legislation of responsible authorities, which may apply to the land. This Permit is not a building permit. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION No. xxx/12 PASSED BY THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD THIS DAY OF , 2012. ISSUED THIS DAY OF , 2012 _____________________________________ Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

29

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 6, 2012


FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician, Planning & Development Division

RE: Rezoning and OCP Amendment Referral from Islands Trust regarding Camp Fircom

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee receive the report titled, “Rezoning and OCP Amendment Referral from Islands Trust regarding Camp Fircom” and dated June 6, 2012; and

2. THAT planning staff respond to the Rezoning and OCP Amendment Referral from Islands Trust regarding Camp Fircom noting its interests are unaffected by the proposal.

BACKGROUND The Regional District is in receipt of a referral from the Islands Trust on an application to amend the Gambier Island Land Use Bylaw to rezone the subject property from ‘Settlement Residential’ (SR) to ‘Recreational Service (a)’ (S3a) zone. The proposed changes in zoning would permit recreation camp, assembly and accessory uses with limited development and no subdivision potential. This application is also for an OCP amendment to change the land use designation from ‘Settlement Residential (SR)’ to ‘Private Camps (CMP)’. OWNER/APPLICANT: Camp Fircom – British Columbia Conference Property Development Council of

the United Church of Canada LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, District Lot 836, Plan 21550, PID 009-393-358 ELECTORAL AREA: F LOCATION: Gambier Island in Halkett Bay (Howe Sound) PROPOSAL: to rezone a waterfront parcel from residential use to private camp use, as an

extension of the existing Camp Fircom property directly to the south. Currently SR zone proposed to change to S3a zone.

PARCEL AREA: 24.5 ha (60.6 ac) DISCUSSION The lot is located along Halkett Bay on Gambier Island. The subject property was sold to the current owners as an extension to the existing 14 hectare (34.5 acre) Camp Fircom property

30

ANNEX H

which operates as a youth camping facility maintained by two non-profit groups; the Camp Fircom Society in partnership with the BC Conference of the United Church of Canada. The 24.5 hectare lot is currently vacant land, with no buildings or structures but a small trail network. Camp Fircom wants the land to comply with their camp zone and OCP designation so that they can run programs on the property as an extension of the camp to the south. The lot is designated Settlement Residential (SR) with a current potential of a minimum of 12 residential lots. Immediately to the north is the Halkett Bay Provincial Marine Park, and immediately to the south is the existing Camp Fircom property. To the west is a residential subdivision and to the east is Halkett Bay. The applicant has indicated that the subject property would remain undeveloped for the purpose of nature-based camp activities. The applicants held an open house for their proposal but no members of the public attended. Two letters of support were received by Gambier Island residents. This application does not appear to affect the SCRD interests. Planning staff recommend that a response be sent to the Islands Trust noting our interests are unaffected by the Bylaw. Attachments: 1

31

Bylaw No.: 118

700 North RoadGabriola Island BC VOR 1X3

Ph: (250) 247-2063Fax: (250) 247-7514

[email protected]

You are requested to comment on the attached Bylaw for potential effect on your agency’s interests. We would appreciate your response within30 days. If no response is received within that time, it will be assumed that your agency’s interests are unaffected. For your information a PublicHearing to consider the Bylaw is tentatively scheduled for July 5, 2012.

APPLICANTS NAME I ADDRESS:

PURPOSE OF BYLAW:To amend the Gambier Island Land Use Bylaw to re-zone the subject property from Settlement Residential’ (SR) toRecreational Service (a)’ (S3a) zone. The proposed change in zoning would permit recreation camp, assembly and accessoryuses with limited development and no subdivision potential.

GENERAL LOCATION:

Lot B, District Lot 836, Plan 21550, Gambier Island PID 009-393-358

SIZE OF PROPERTY AFFECTED:ha (60.6 acres)

ALR STATUS:Not inALR

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION:Settlement Residential

OTHER INFORMATION:ri1e Land Use Bylaw amendment is part of a rezoning application to rezone a waterfront parcel from residential use to privatecamp use, as an extension of the existing Camp Fircom property directly to the south. An Official Community Plan amendment

is also required (Proposed Bylaw No. 117).

Please fill out the Response Summary on the back of this form. If your agency’s interests are “Unaffected”, no further information is necessary.In all other cases, we would appreciate receiving additional information to substantiate your position and, if necessary, outline any conditionsrelated to your position. Please note any legislation or official government policy which would affect our consideration of this Bylaw.

a41

(Signature)

Name:

Title:

Sonja Zupanec

Island Planner

PLEASETURN OVER +

BYLAWREFERRAL FO

IslcrnclsTrt1stIsland: Gambier Island

M[EiVEDMAY 1 It 2012

S.C.R.D.

Date: May8,2012

Camp Fircom — British Columbia Conference Property Development Council of the United Church of Canada

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

Camp Fircom is located on Gambier Island in Halkett Bay (Howe Sound).

kItc’noilhern gambiereylaws\bylaw reTerrals’,bylaw 11 referral cioc32

This referral has been sent to the following agencies:

Federal Agencies Regional AgenciesN/A Sunshine Coast Regional District - Building Inspector

Provincial Agencies Adjacent Local Trust Committees and MunicipalitiesMinistry of Environment Bowen Island MunicipalityVancouver Coastal Health AuthorityBC Assessment Authority

Non-Agency Referrals First NationsIslands Trust Bylaw Enforcement Squamish NationIslands Trust Fund Stzuminus First Nation

Cowichan TribesHalalt First NationLake Cowichan First NationLyackson First NationPenelakut TribeHuIquminum Treaty GroupTe’Mexw Treaty AssociationSnawNawAs NationTsleil-Waututh Nationshishalh (Sechelt) First NationSliammon First NationMusqueam NationTsawwassen First NationSemiahmoo First NationSeabird IslandShxwowhamel First NationSkawahlook First NationSoowahtie Indian BandSto:Io Tribal CouncilSto:Io Nation

k:\Itc’northern gambieñbyaws\byIaw refenals\bylaw 118 referraldoc 33

BYLAW REFERRAL FORMRESPONSE SUMMARY

Approval Recommended for Reasons Outlined Below

Approval Recommended Subject to Conditions Outlined Below

Interests Unaffected by Bylaw

Approval Not Recommended Due to Reason Outlined Below

Gambier Island 118(Island) (Bylaw Number)

(Signature) (Title)

(Date) (Agency)

k:\Itcriorthern ambier\byIaws\bylaw referrals\bylaw 118 referral.doc 34

PROPOSEDGAMBlER ISLAND LOCAL TRUST COMMIUEE

BYLAW No. 118

A BYLAW TO AMEND GAMBlER ISLAND LAND USE BYLAW 86, 2004

WHEREAS the Gambler Island Local Trust Committee is the Local Trust Committee having jurisdictionon and in respect of the Gambler Island Local Trust Area, pursuant to the Islands Trust Act;

AND WHEREAS Section 29 of the Islands Trust Act gives the Gambler Island Local Trust Committeethe same power and authority of a Regional District under Part 26 except Sections 932 to 937 and 939of the Local Government Act;

AND WHEREAS the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee wishes to amend Land Use Bylaw 86,2004;

AND WHEREAS the Gambler Island Local Trust Committee has held a Public Hearing;

NOW THEREFORE the Gambier lslafld Local Trust Committee enacts in open meeting assembled asfollows:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Gambler Island Land Use Bylaw No. 86, 2004,Amendment No. 1, 2012.”

2. Gambler Island Land Use Bylaw No. 86, 2004 is amended as follows:

(1) Adding the following text under Part 5.9(11):

“Site Specific Regulations

(12) The following table denotes a location where, despite or in addition to the regulations inthis Section, specific regulations apply. In the first column, the zone abbreviation and the lowercase letter reference the notation on the zoning map. The second column describes thelocation where the specific regulations cited in column three apply:

Table 5.9

Site Location Description Site Specific RegulationsSpecific

Zone

S3(a) Lot 8, District Lot 836, (1) Despite 5.9(1) recreation camp, assemblyPlan 21550, Halkett Bay, and accessory uses are the onlyGambler Island permitted uses.

(2) Despite 5.9(3) no residential caretakerPID: 009-393-358 dwelling unit accessory to recreational

camp use is permitted.(3) Despite 5.9(4) the maximum lot coverage

for all buildings and structures is 5%.(4) Despite 5.9(7) and 5.9(9) moorage is not

permitted in the foreshore area adjacentto the S3(a) zone.

(5) Despite 5.9(10) and (11) the minimum lotarea and minimum average lot areacreated by subdivision is 24 hectares.’

135

PROPOSED

(2) Schedule “B” (Zoning Map) is amended by changing the zoning of the area indicated on PlanNo. 1, attached to and forming part of this Bylaw, from the Settlement Residential - (SR) zoneto a Recreation Service(a) (S3)(a) zone.

READAFIRSTTIMEthis 1st dayof March ,2012.

PUBLIC HEARING HELD this day of 201x.

READ A SECOND TIME this day of ,201x.

READATHIRDTIMEthIs dayof ,201x.

APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ISLANDS TRUSTthis day of , 201x.

ADOPTED this day of , 201x.

CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY

236

PROPOSEDGAMBlER ISLAND LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE

BYLAW No. 118

PLAN NO. I

L 836

SCP 2?3O

P1U4P256

/

\

Hakett Pt

SUBJECT AREAFrom: SETTLEMENT RESIDENTIAL - SRTo: RECREATION SERVICE (a) - S3(a)

337

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.142\Reports and Board Resolutions 310.142\2012-Jun-21 PDC report 310.142.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – June 21, 2012 FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: BYLAW 325.21 AND BYLAW 310.142 (GIDORAS’ FARM)

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142 (Gidoras’ Farm) be received; AND THAT with regard to 8066 Redrooff Road and 8070 Redrooffs Road the Planning and Development Committee recommend to the Regional District Board to select from the following options:

1. Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142 be abandoned and the applicants be refunded $900;

2. the property owners be requested remove the rooster and commit to a timetable to do so;

3. the property owners be asked to submit a development variance permit application regarding the siting of the enclosures;

4. staff provide an In Camera report setting out what steps could be taken should the property owners not proceed with a development variance permit;

5. should the property owners reject removing the rooster the issue be included in the In Camera report;

6. the property owners be requested remove the rooster and further action be placed on hold until forthcoming proposals to amend the agriculture and poultry provisions of Bylaw 310 have undergone public consultation, the Board should then review what actions staff should take in light of the results of the consultation.

BACKGROUND The two properties are located on Redrooffs Road between Southwood and Evans Road (Attachment A).

At the November 24, 2011 meeting, the Regional District Board adopted the following resolution (455/11):

Recommendation No. 5 Keeping of Poultry in Residential Zones

THAT the staff report titled “Bylaw Options with respect to the Keeping of Poultry in Residential Zones” dated November 2, 2011 be received;

AND THAT the owners of PID: 026-958-244, Lot A District Lot 1325 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP28210 and PID: 026-958-252, Lot B District Lot 1325 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP28210 be requested to apply for a site

<<38

ANNEX I

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee June 21, 2012 Regarding Bylaws 325.21 and 310.142 (Gidora) Page 2 of 9


specific amendment on or before December 15, 2011 to Zoning Bylaw 310 to accommodate activities related to poultry keeping including the sale of eggs and meat on these parcels;

AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed with Bylaw enforcement action with respect to PID: 026-958-244, Lot A District Lot 1325 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP28210 and 026-958-252, Lot B District Lot 1325 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP28210 if a zoning amendment application is not received on or before December 15, 2011.

The Regional District received an application from the property owners to amend the zoning and the Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan to allow for their farm activities. They have operated as a small organic market garden and raise chickens for the sale of eggs. The chicken coop is located on the ‘upper’ parcel, within 15 m of the side property lines. There are up to 50 chickens on site. The chicken manure is stored and used as fertilizer for the horticulture activity. Concerns were raised about the noise generated by the chickens and the rooster along with the odour from the chicken manure.

Referrals were sent to the Area B Advisory Planning Commission and the Agricultural Advisory Commission in February 2012. The APC and AAC were asked to comment on proposed OCP and zoning bylaws and advise whether a better option would be to consider a temporary use permit. Their comments are included in Attachment B. After these meetings the applicant informed staff that they wished to withdraw their application and wished to have a refund. They stated that they no longer sell eggs from the site and have made significant adjustments to how the manure is stored on site.

Staff have communicated with the Gidoras to inform them that there is still an outstanding issue related to the location of the chicken and duck coops as they are within 15 metres of the side parcel lines. Thus they will need to apply for a development variance permit to resolve this.

Bylaw 522 (Planning and Development Procedures and Fees) allows for a portion of the fees ($900) allocated to holding a public hearing to be refunded. The remainder of the fee is not refundable.

The May 17, 2012, Planning and Development Committee received a letter from a neighbor who raised concerns about noise and its impact on his health. Staff committed to provide an update report to the June 21, 2012 PDC.

DISCUSSION Staff note that certain aspects relating to non-compliance with Bylaw 310 and issues raised in complaints have been resolved, there still is an outstanding issue. The following set out the issues considered to date and their current status.

1 Odour

The property owners have modified how the manage poultry manure and are composting it on site. It appears that this has reduced the impact of odour and this matter is no longer a concern.

2 Sale of Eggs

The property owners no longer sell eggs from their site. However they may be doing so at the Sechelt (possibly other) Farmers Market. If this is the case then this does not comply with Bylaw 310 as the keeping of poultry is for domestic consumption only in the R2 zone. Staff will investigate this matter and discuss it with the property owners.

39



3 Noise

Bylaw 310 does not limit the gender of poultry and any concerns regarding noise need to be addressed under the Sunshine Coast Regional Distinct Noise Control Bylaw 597, 2008, and the procedures in place.

There continues to be a rooster on site and it is alleged that this is contributing to a noise issue. However the SCRD has not received sufficient information from local resident to confirm the issue. The bylaw compliance file is on hold until such information is received.

In March, 2012, the Gidoras stated that they will find a new home for the rooster.

4 Number of Chickens and other Poultry (ducks)

Bylaw 310 does not limit the number of poultry that are kept on site.

5 Setback of Structures, Enclosures and Other Features and Development Variance Permit

Bylaw 310 requires that enclosures, structures or building are kept 15 metres from a parcel line. This is met with respect to the rear parcel line, however the coops are very close to the side parcel lines. This matter could be resolved though a development variance permit, subject to community input and Board resolution. Based on information provided by the Gidoras the coops are 1.2 metres from one side parcel line and 2.8 metres from the other. Staff have communicated with the Gidoras regarding the need for a DVP, however to date they have not agreed to apply.

6 Review of Bylaw 310

Staff are currently reviewing Bylaw 310 and have worked with a sub-committee of the Agriculture Advisory Committee to provide a new set of proposed zoning criteria for farming/agriculture (including the keeping of poultry). The sub-committee is still meeting and staff will need to finalize this work and schedule its presentation to the Planning and Development Committee and the public in the context of proposals for other sections of Bylaw 310.

The property owners are aware of this review as the matter was discussed when they attended the AAC when their application was being reviewed. They feel that as the issue is being considered by the SCRD (currently at staff and AAC level) for all properties then it is not fair that they are under the burden of paying for a site specific solution that may be allowed for in a future change in the zoning bylaw for all properties.

As proposals to amend provisions for the keeping of poultry will be forthcoming then the board could place any actions regarding Gidora’s Farm on hold. This would allow then proposed amendments to be considered by the Board and undergo public consultation. Once the Board has considered which proposals should move forward as amendments to Bylaw 310 then it could determine what actions need to be taken with respect to Gidora’s Farm. Should the Board consider that this is the best option, then staff consider that an interim measure should be to require the removal of the rooster. The rooster seems to be the main source of noise that has generated complaints to the Regional District.

7 Abandoning Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142

The property owners have withdrawn their application and as such are entitled to a refund of $900. Staff require a Board resolution to abandon the bylaws so that the refund can be processed.

40



Recommendations

1 The Board resolves to abandon Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142 and a refund of $900 is processed and sent to the applicants

Staff consider that it is clear that the property owners no longer will pursue a rezoning application. Staff also consider that the Regional District should not take on the role of applicant for this site specific activity. To do so would create resource concerns and is likely to be opposed by the property owner.

2 The Board directs staff to provide an In Camera report setting out what steps could be taken should the property owners not proceed with a development variance permit

Consideration of bylaw compliance matters normally takes place In Camera. This is allowed for by the Community Charter. This will allow staff to provide all options for the Board to consider and allow it to direct staff as to the appropriate action to take.

Staff consider that currently there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved and that direction from the Board needs to be provided.

3 In light of ongoing noise concerns raised by a neighbor the Board request that the property owners remove the rooster and commit to a timetable to do so.

Staff consider that while Bylaw 310 does not place restrictions on the gender of poultry, given that there is an ongoing concern raised by a local resident, the property owners should be asked to voluntarily remove the rooster from the property. This could remove the outstanding concerns regarding noise.

Should the property owners reject this, the Board could provide direction to staff in the context of the discussion of bylaw compliance matters noted above.

4 Direct staff not to take any further action other than to request the removal of the rooster.

An alternative would be to direct staff not to pursue any action, other than to require the removal of the rooster, until the forthcoming proposals to amend Bylaw 310 have progressed thorough initial public consultation. Further action would be reviewed in light of this.

CONCLUSION Issues relating to sale of eggs and odour seem to be resolved. There is still a resident of the area who is concerned about noise and the impact on his health. Staff note that a development variance permit is required to consider the non-compliant setbacks of the coops to the side parcel lines.

Staff ask that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to the Board that:

1. Bylaw 325.21 and Bylaw 310.142 be abandoned and the applicants be refunded $900;

2. the property owners be requested remove the rooster and commit to a timetable to do so;

3. the property owners be asked to submit a development variance permit application regarding the siting of the enclosures;

4. staff provide an In Camera report setting out what steps could be taken should the property owners not proceed with a development variance permit;

41



5. should the property owners reject removing the rooster the issue be included in the In Camera report;

6. the property owners be requested remove the rooster and further action be placed on hold until forthcoming proposals to amend the agriculture and poultry provisions of Bylaw 310 have undergone public consultation, the Board should then review what actions staff should take in light of the results of the consultation.

__________________________

David Rafael, Senior Planner

42



Site Location and Address ATTACHMENT A

43



Air Photo (2009)

44



ATTACHMENT B

Halfmoon Bay Advisory Planning Commission (February 28, 2012) OCP Amendment Bylaw 325.21 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.142

Staff introduced the proposal for an amendment to Bylaw 325.21 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.142 (Gidora), outlining the suggestions provided by the SCRD. This was followed by guest discussion.

APC Comments/Concerns: -Members support Gidora’s local small-scale residential farm and feel that the community is enriched by the concept of small farms unobtrusively scattered throughout the community.

-Given the noise and odour complaint, APC members question the number of roosters: (three when the complaint was filed, and currently one rooster).

-Members feel that the raising of turkeys is of far greater concern than the keeping of hens.

-It was mentioned that unlike noise bylaws, there are no bylaws to control odour if the use is permitted.

Motion: That the APC visit the Gidora farm and neighbours and provide feedback to the SCRD after discussion at the next APC meeting.

Agricultural Advisory Committee (February 28, 2012) OCP Amendment Bylaw 325.21 & Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.142 (Gidora, 8066 & 8070 Redroofs Road, Halfmoon Bay, BC)

A complaint was received by the SCRD regarding noise, smell and some of the retail components being conducted on the subject property. Senior Planner David Rafael reviewed the staff report that outlined potential ways to address the issues.

Dan Gidora, Bev Gidora, and Dianne Gidora provided background information and raised numerous arguments in support of their farm operation.

Background submissions were distributed that included a letter to the Agricultural Advisory Committee dated February 28, 2012 along with “Information Documents” and photographs of the Gidora farm.

Applicants noted they had no ambitions to have a large scale poultry operation.

It was stated that there was no problem regarding odor. The applicants were ensuring the chicken manure composting was done right and in an ongoing timely and systematic manner.

The presence of a rooster, raised humanely and selected for his non‐aggressive demeanor, was emphasized as necessary to ensure food security and sustainability. A rooster looks after the flock and keeps chickens from fighting against each other. “You want to have animals that are raised humanely. Hens without a rooster are nota happy bunch.” Regarding noise of roosters, many neighbours had said they liked the sound.

45



24 hens would not be viable for their operation; 50 hens, the current number being raised, worked well for the farm, which would not require more manure than that number of hens would produce.

It was noted that eggs were not a money maker. The point of getting the chickens was to close the loop of sustainability, to have manure, necessary to farm organically.

The complaint was the first in the 18 years of the farm’s operation. It was stated that the Gidoras had the support of the neighbourhood.

The applicants expressed concern that a Temporary Use Permit would be fair in the case of review or renewal.

Staff and the applicants responded to comments and questions from the Committee. The current zoning bylaw allows the raising of poultry for domestic consumption and does not limit the number of chickens.

Points and comments raised by Committee members included:

Questions about renewals and the public process regarding a Temporary Use Permit

Don’t take away farm land for extra parking; it only requires one stall.

Gidora’s have been running their operation for years. I understand with the system they’ve got that 25 chickens wouldn’t cut it. They are feeding so many plants. That is producing food for their community, and showing the community that it can be done… I think it goes beyond rules because of the value for the community.

Recommendation No. 1 Retail Sale of Eggs The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended support for Option 1, to allow retail sale of eggs on a small farm level.

Recommendation No. 2 Temporary Use Permit The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended that the SCRD considers Option 3, Temporary Use Permit; and that the issue of the commercial use of poultry and other aspects of agricultural use be considered during the Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan review; and further that a limit is not placed on the number of poultry to keep on the subject property.

Action: Members were requested to forward communications to David Rafael if there was further response as individuals or as a group.

46

David Rafael [ RE?ED

Senior Planner j JUN 202012

Sunshine Coast Regional District L-’1Jr’JJ1’G DIVISION

1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC, VON 3A1 June 20/2012

David,

Thank you again for the informative email and comprehensive SCRD staff report that you have compiledfor the Planning and Development Committee —June 21, 2012. It has helped us better appreciate theSCRD commitment to local sustainable farming and how you see Gidora’s Garden fitting into that vision.

As you are aware our initial application was for a possible rezoning and has now evolved into a setbackvariance application. This was a result of discussions with you, the AAC and the Halfmoon Bay APC. Wewould like $900.00 refunded and the remaining portion of the$2400.OO we paid the SCRD to be used forthe development variance permit to address the side parcel set back issue for the location of the chickenhouse.

We have made arrangements for Christmas Road farm, Pat and Diane Walker to take our rooster. Thiswill happen before the end of this week. As you know, we have been locking up our birds from Dusk toDawn to help keep morning crowing to conform to noise bylaw intentions. Completely eliminating therooster sounds (from our property-as there are other roosters in the close vicinity) will hopefully bereceived by the complainant in a positive way.

The area where we live (especially the back of the property) is treed and alive with bird sounds. We havenesting eagles, ravens, crows, owls, doves and many other birds. The only time during the day you willhear our birds is when they feel threatened. The rooster (along with other birds and the squirrels) sendsoff an alarm to alert the flock (and us). We have contacted all our close neighbours along with many ofthe regular trail walkers and have found no concerns with chicken sounds at all.

We do want to emphasise that loosing our rooster is regrettable for us and the happy flock of hens thathe stewards. We hope that this will not in any way help to create a blanket ban for roosters in ourzoning within the SCRD. Roosters’ are an important component for true food security is and essential tocreating a truly humane habitat for chicken farming.

As of late we have found the complainant standing at the back of our property during the day and haveactually been told by him that soon we will have to get rid of our chickens. This has been going on fartoo long. We are feeling harassed.

Our preference would have been to wait for the new by law to be put in place and go from there but asthis seems to be a ways off still our desire is to move forward on these issues so we can have someconfidence in our farming practices.

46a

egarding the sale of eggs we think it would be a great thing for the residents of the Sunshine Coast to

be able topurchasethem from their local farmers and even neighbours who may be keeping a small

flock of birds. The interest in this issue around the neighbourhood is very strong.

All of our feedback over the 18 years has been very positive and supportive and continues to be even

more so. We want to move forward and put our available energy towards positive things and focus on

the work at hand!

Sincerely,

Dianne, Dan and Beverley Gidora

8066 Redrooffs Rd and 8070 Redrooffs Rd, Halfmoon Bay, BC

46b

SCRD STAFF REPORT


FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

RE: Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones

RECOMMENDATION(S) It is recommended that the Committee consider one or a combination of the following actions for recommendation to the Regional Board:

1. a. That a site specific zoning approach to nightly and short term rentals be developed for inclusion in Zoning Bylaw 310 or Zoning Bylaw 337 or both; b. That an inventory of existing short term rental properties be compiled for

consideration of inclusion in the new short term rental zone; and c. That properties which are the subject of ongoing bylaw enforcement action not

be included in the site specific rezoning.

2. a. That staff investigate the feasibility of licensing short term rental accommodation through a business regulation service; and

b. That the feasibility of including short term rentals in the proposed two percent hotel tax be investigated in collaboration with Sunshine Coast Tourism.

3. That Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 638,

2011 be amended to include a ticketing mechanism for unauthorized short term rentals.

BACKGROUND A number of complaints have been received and responded to by SCRD staff regarding nightly and short term rentals of “vacation” houses in residential zones. The rental businesses differ from bed and breakfasts in that the operator of the business is generally not present on site during the duration of the rental. The general intent however, of residential zoning is typically for use of a building in a somewhat permanent manner whereas providing a residence for a fee to someone with a permanent residence elsewhere is generally considered commercial use. Whether legal or not, short term rentals have proven contentious in many tourism oriented communities. While short-term rental accommodation potentially improves the availability and options for visitor accommodation, conflicts can arise with residents who don’t necessarily support rentals within their neighbourhood. The Whistler Centre for Sustainability recently identified the most common identified challenges and benefits associated with short term rentals for the Resort Municipality of Sun Peaks, as follows:

47

ANNEX J

COMMONLY IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES COMMONLY IDENTIFIED BENEFITS

• Noise and security

• Increased investment return for property owners

• Unfair tax advantage to owners operating as a business out of a residential tax class

• More accommodation options and prices for visitors, improving their experience

• Increased cost of housing for some local residents due to inflated real estate.

• Increased development and job creation

• Loss of community feel (or challenge at building it)

• Positive intermingling of visitors and residents

• Parking overflow, traffic and snow clearing challenges

• Offsets the cost of housing/expenses for local residents renting out a portion of their home

• Safety and fire hazards due to overcrowding

• Offsets the costs of the local property for some part-time residents renting their property

• Erosion of core commercial area and commercial tax base source: Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality Short-Term Rentals: Ways Forward, https://sunpeaks.civicweb.net/FileStorage/79B9A2EC5B794720859A3704B28AFA41-WorkspaceSun%20Peaks%20Short%20Term%20Chalet%20Rentals%20Final.pdf

The key issue associated with short term rentals in SCRD Electoral Areas has been noise. Key questions to be addressed include: is the use of residential and rural zoned property for nightly and short term rentals is a permitted use under SCRD zoning bylaws? Are SCRD bylaws enforceable as written regarding short term rentals? On a policy level, should SCRD bylaws be amended to permit short term rentals as principal, accessory or temporary uses? DISCUSSION Zoning Analysis As a basic provision in SCRD zoning, section 302 of Bylaws 310 and 337 states that: “Land shall not be used or subdivided and buildings and structures shall not be constructed, altered, located or used except as specifically permitted by this bylaw.” Stated another way, unless a use is specifically listed as a permitted use, it is prohibited and rezoning would be necessary. As the terms “nightly rental” and “short term rental” are neither defined nor used in SCRD Zoning Bylaws 310 or 337 they are considered to be “prohibited” uses which would require a zoning amendment to authorize. The general intent of residential zoning is typically for use of a building as a principal residence whereas providing accommodation for a fee to someone with a permanent residence elsewhere is generally considered commercial use. The terms “short-term rental” or “nightly rental” are used in this report to mean the practice of renting a residentially zoned single-family dwelling or cottage on a commercial basis by the night or week for periods less than 28-days at a time for the purpose of providing short term accommodations. Occupants of the short term rental are “guests” as opposed to “tenants”. The provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act do not apply to guests of a short term rental. SCRD zoning bylaws permit “bed and breakfast” on a scale ranging from two to five bedrooms. The key parameter that differentiates a B&B from a nightly rental is that the B&B is operated by a resident manager while a nightly rental usually is not. This distinction can become significant when noise from short term rental disturbs the

48

https://sunpeaks.civicweb.net/FileStorage/79B9A2EC5B794720859A3704B28AFA41-WorkspaceSun%20Peaks%20Short%20Term%20Chalet%20Rentals%20Final.pdf

https://sunpeaks.civicweb.net/FileStorage/79B9A2EC5B794720859A3704B28AFA41-WorkspaceSun%20Peaks%20Short%20Term%20Chalet%20Rentals%20Final.pdf

neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their properties as there is no resident manager neighbours can contact to immediately rectify the situation. Recent Judgment: Okanagan-Similkameen (Regional District) v. Leach A recent court case in the Regional District of Okanogan-Similkameen deals with short term rental issues very similar to those being experienced on the Sunshine Coast. In the Okanogan-Similkameen case, the “Vacation Rentals” provided for weekly rental of a property with full use of the primary dwelling located on the property. The property was made available for rent to one family or group ranging from two to eight people at a time. The longest period of rental to any single group was three weeks. The Vacation Rental was not operated as a bed and breakfast and the operators were not present during periods the property was rented. The operators did occupy the dwelling themselves for about one to three months per year. In at least one of the SCRD bylaw complaints, we understand the operator rarely if ever occupies the property. The RDOS position was that the operation of the tourist accommodation business contravened the zoning bylaw because the rental did not fit within the prescribed list of permitted uses under the residential zoning. The regional district asserted that the rental of the property contravened the use as a “single-family dwelling” (within the meaning of the applicable zoning bylaw) or as a “single detached dwelling”. The defendants submitted that their principal use of the property was as a single detached dwelling. In support of this position, they emphasize that their use of the property is not limited to the Vacation Rentals. They referred to a number of non-rental uses - such as using the property themselves, letting family and friends stay in it, or simply leaving the property vacant. They argued that the permissible primary use as a single detached dwelling is satisfied by all of them, regardless of whether the defendants are physically present at the property. The judge in her analysis noted that the RDOS bylaw made no express provision that the dwelling unit must be put to a “residential” use. SCRD zoning bylaws, in comparison, do state that a dwelling is “…a self-contained unit within a building, used or intended as a residence….”. The judge also accepted that “ the rental of a detached dwelling to short-term paying guests is not a normal and customary residential use in the sense of being the principal use for this type of property” and concluded that “short-term vacation rentals are not permissible as a principal use in the RS1 Zone”. The RDOS zoning bylaws also provided for “private visitor accommodation” as a secondary use in the RS1 zone. The judgement hinged around this provision, with the judge determining that the use of the property was properly characterized as a private visitor accommodation consistent with the bylaw. There are a number of insights to be gained from this case, the first being that there are likely sufficient distinguishing aspects regarding the particulars of the recent complaints and also of the SCRD’s zoning to put the SCRD in a better position to enforce its bylaws if necessary. Second, if the SCRD decides to regulate short term rentals, there are some specific considerations and lessons to be learned from this case; for example, (1) to include an express requirement that an operator of a short term rental be a full time resident of the property and/or be present on site at times the property is being rented on a short term basis and (2) to specifically exclude short term rentals as a permitted use in some or all zones (if that is desired by the regional board).

49

OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. create site specific zoning and zone existing operations. 2. permit short term rentals in residential and rural zones and seek authority to license

short term rentals (and apply the 2 percent hotel tax) 3. consider “ongoing” temporary use permits as an alternative to licensing 4. maintain the status quo - enforce existing zoning and/or noise bylaws on a complaint

driven basis

ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS 1. Site Specific Rezoning

Under this option a new “sub-zone” for nightly/short term rental businesses would be created and existing businesses included in the zone. This option would recognize that (a) the majority of short term rental businesses operate without incident. Existing businesses that have been problematic need not be included in the zone. Future businesses would require site specific zoning.

2. Licensing Licensing is the approach the District of Sechelt has taken regarding nightly/short term rentals. “Short term residential rentals” are a permitted use and are regulated through business licenses. This approach acknowledges short term rentals as a permitted use and provides for a relatively simple and effective enforcement mechanism in situations where regulations are breached. In order to operate a short-term rental, a property owner must have a business license and make a refundable $1,000 deposit as a bond to promote compliance with the regulations. They have a list of operating parameters outlined in their business bylaw. The enforcement procedure gives the Business License Inspector the authority to direct a business to cease. A copy of the Sechelt business license regulations for short term residential rentals is attached as Appendix 1. Licensing may be an option worth pursuing; however, there has been a long standing reluctance at the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to authorize the issuance of business licenses in unincorporated areas. Regional districts do not have express business licensing powers under the Local Government Act, so this means of ensuring compliance with zoning is not available unless the regional board has established a business regulation service. The Central Okanogan Regional District may be the only RD that has business licensing authority. In terms of “leveling the playing field” somewhat with commercial accommodation businesses, it may also be worthwhile to investigate the feasibility of inclusion of short term rental properties in the two percent hotel tax program.

3. Temporary Use Permits

An alternative to business licensing could be the use of temporary use permits to regulate short term rentals. Under this option permits would need to be renewed and re-issued on an ongoing basis every year or two. The advantage of this approach is the degree of control over operational aspects of the business that are difficult to regulate through zoning – for example, if the Board wished to establish a maximum number of days in a year the business could operate; or the hours when “quiet times” would be in effect.

50

The regional district could, at the time of issuing a temporary use permit, require the posting of security to guarantee the performance of permit conditions (such as ceasing operations at expiry of the permit), the form of security and the amount of security that will forfeit to the regional district if there is a failure to conform with the conditions.

4. Bylaw Enforcement

For reasons noted below it is not considered advisable to initiate broad enforcement action against all nightly/short term rental businesses. Option 4 would involve no changes to zoning and bylaw enforcement would take place on a complaint driven basis per existing SCRD policy. The bylaw enforcement option could also involve use of the Bylaw Notice Enforcement (BEN) ticketing system to deal with bylaw contraventions. Under BEN, tickets would be issued to the property owner in conjunction with bylaw violations. The fine could be set sufficiently high to act as a deterrent to further unauthorized use. In the event that fines went unpaid and the problematic short term rentals continued, staff are aware of a possible remedy involving having the unpaid fine liability registered against the property title. An amendment to Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 638, 2011 would be required to implement this option.

Economic Implications

During the course of researching the nightly/short term rental issue on the Sunshine Coast, it became apparent that the activity is one that likely makes a significant contribution to the economy of the Coast. A search of one vacation rentals website (www.vrbo.com accessed June 6, 2012 revealed that there were 26 short term rentals being advertised in Halfmoon Bay, 25 in Egmont-Pender Harbour, 13 in Roberts Creek, 28 in Sechelt and 19 in Gibsons. Some of the listings are for commercial establishments such as Bonniebrook Lodge and the Painted Boat, and others are for B&Bs; but it appears a large majority are nightly rentals as described above. Prices range up to $5,000 per week. Short term rentals, while under our “radar”; are a significant component of the Sunshine Coast tourism industry. It is also acknowledged that, despite being not permitted uses under SCRD zoning, the vast majority of short term rentals in the Electoral Areas on the Sunshine Coast are operating without complaints. A response involving enforcement action to shut down short term rental businesses would thus seem to be entirely inappropriate. Fiscal Implications The four options presented all have some degree of fiscal implications for the SCRD. Establishing a new zoning category and rezoning existing short term rentals (Option 1) will require staff time plus some relatively minor costs. Future revenues would be generated from site specific rezoning applications. Option 3, temporary use permits, would have similar cost implications but would require more administrative effort on an ongoing basis to manage permit renewals. Business licensing under Option 2, if available to the SCRD, would be less administratively cumbersome than the TUP option, as the renewal process for business licences is comparatively simple in relation to that for temporary permits, but would still create additional workload. The ticketing alternative under Option 4 has relatively minimal fiscal impact once the BEN system is established, while injunctive action under zoning can be costly.

51

http://www.vrbo.com/

RECOMMENDATION Based on the above, it is recommended that the Committee and Board consider one or a combination of the following actions:

1. a. That a site specific zoning approach to nightly and short term rentals be developed for inclusion in Zoning Bylaw 310 or Zoning Bylaw 337 or both; b. That an inventory of existing short term rental properties be compiled for

consideration of inclusion in the new short term rental zone; and c. That properties which are the subject of ongoing bylaw enforcement action not

be included in the site specific rezoning.

2. a. That staff investigate the feasibility of licensing short term rental accommodation through a business regulation service; and

b. That the feasibility of including short term rentals in the proposed two percent hotel tax be investigated in collaboration with Sunshine Coast Tourism.

3. That Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 638, 2011 be amended to include a ticketing mechanism for unauthorized short term rentals.

52

Appendix 1: District of Sechelt Short Term Residential Rental License Terms and Conditions In order to lessen the impact of the short term rental of residential dwelling units in the community in general and residential neighbourhoods in particular the following terms and conditions must be met to obtain, continue to hold and renew a business license to operate a short term residential rental business. These terms and conditions are in addition to any other terms and conditions which may be imposed by the License Inspector.

1. Every applicant for and holder of a short term residential rental business license

must provide the District of Sechelt with the name, address and telephone number of a person residing in the District on a permanent basis ("Local Contact"). The Local Contact must be available, and if not, the owner must be available, to respond to and deal with in a timely and appropriate manner any complaints or problems from short term residential rental tenants or neighbouring residents in respect of the property that is the subject of the business license. It shall be the obligation of the license holder to notify the District of Sechelt immediately if the name, address or telephone number of the Local Contact changes.

The owners of properties within 100 metres of the short term residential rental property shall be notified in writing of the name, address and telephone number of the Local Contact (or owner where local contact not applicable) within thirty (30) days of the granting or renewal of a short term residential rental business license or within thirty (30) days of notification of a change in the name, address or telephone number of the Local Contact.

2. Vehicle parking for short term residential rental tenants or guests of short term

residential rental tenants shall be restricted to the property and, where permitted by law, that portion of the road immediately adjacent to the property.

3. Prior to the granting of a short term residential rental business license the applicant

shall be required to deposit with the District of Sechelt, in addition to the business license fee, the amount of $1000 (the "Deposit"). The Deposit shall be held by the District of Sechelt as security against any costs incurred by the District of Sechelt as a result of investigations, hearings, appeals or other enforcement actions undertaken by the License Inspector or the District of Sechelt, whether initiated by the License Inspector or the municipality or resulting from third party complaints, in respect of the operation of the short term residential rental business. If any deductions are made to the Deposit the holder of the business license will forthwith replenish the Deposit to the original amount. The Deposit or any portion remaining after deduction will be returned to the person who paid it within sixty (60) days of the cancellation or termination or failure to renew the business license.

4. The holder of a short term residential rental business license must display a copy of

the business license and the name, address and telephone number of the Local Contact in a prominent location on the premises. Signage advertising the short term residential rental business is not permitted on the property except as follows:

53

(i) one (1) unlit sign not exceeding one and a half feet by two feet (1W x 2') in

size containing only the address of the property, the name, address and telephone number of the Local Contact and, where applicable the name of the property, business or owner.

5. Transportation of short term residential rental tenants or guests of short term

residential rental tenants to the short term residential rental property by vehicles with a capacity of sixteen (16) passengers or more is prohibited.

6. The holder of a short term residential rental business license must keep a written

record of the names of all short term residential rental tenants. 7. Short term residential rental tenants or guests of short term residential rental

tenants are prohibited from bringing pets onto a short term residential rental property.

8. The Local Contact shall attend at the property at the commencement of all short

term residential rentals and meet the short term residential rental tenants. 9. A Local Contact, including any member of their immediate family, may not be a Local

Contact for more than two (2) separate properties unless the Local Contact is the registered owner of such properties.

54

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 7, 2012


FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician, Planning & Development Division

RE: Highway 101 Music Festival Temporary Liquor Licence Application for a Beer

Garden

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee receives the report titled, “Highway 101 Music Festival Temporary Liquor Licence Application for a Beer Garden” and dated June 7, 2012;

2. AND THAT this referral be supported with no objection. The Pender Harbour Golf Club is hosting the “Highway 101 Country and Rock Music Festival” on Labour Day long weekend – September 1st and 2nd, 2012. As part of the music festival, they have applied for a temporary change to a liquor licence to allow them to extend the liquor licence area outside to accommodate a beer garden. While the SCRD opted out of commenting

on liquor licensing applications in 2006, the Board did wish to continue to provide comment on special occasion liquor applications (Res. #191/06). The referral is attached (Attachment A). The subject parcel is zoned PA1 and permits park, assembly, and the parking use. The Pender Harbour Golf Course lease does not preclude special events such as the music festival. The applicant has noted that the Highway 101 Music Festival is raising funds for the Pender

Harbour Community Club, the Pender Harbour Lions Club, and to support youth in extracurricular activities. They have requested RCMP presence at the event and are looking for RCMP off duty members to volunteer for security. Planning staff recommend responding to the referral with no objection.

ANNEX K

55

Temporary Change to a Liquor LicenceFood-Primary, Liquor-Primary,BRITISH Liquor-Primary Clubs & Winery Endorsements,COLUMBIA

Liquor Control and Licensing Form LCLF 323INSTRUCTIONS:Complete all applicable fields and then submit with payment as outlined in Part 11 of this application form. You may complete thisform online and then print.

If you have any questions about this application, call the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) toll-free at:1 866 209-2111.LCLB forms and supporting materials referred to in this document can be found at: www.pssg.gov.bc.callclbA complete application including the supporting documents must be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) business days inadvance of your event(s); otherwise your application will not be accepted and will returned to you with the fees. The Branchdefines a business day for the purpose of processing applications as Monday - Friday excluding statutory holidays.Applications requesting discretion to policy (see Part 9) must be submitted a minimum of two (2) months prior to your proposedevent; otherwise your application will not be accepted and will be returned to you with the fees.

Licensee Information 1ice use only

IJob No. (C3-LIC)Licence number: I fl r-\ ‘2 Type: F Food-Primary I’5 Liquor-Primary F Liquor-Primary Club F Winery

Licensee name [as shown on licence]:j \“Jo.scc- u.)Establishment name [as shown on iicencei:I Pemc pj— c\ c.,-cou vEstablishment Address: JI,’ D\\C4 cC-rcc, ,J C VON

-

Street City Province Postal CodeContact Name: trj \ \— T Title/Pasition:I cç’

(last I first I middle)

_______________________________

Business Tel with area code:IOJ_ Fax with area code: Ilool-\— OUIBusiness e-mail: eLccp\ .-cai\

re8S IVo ô’6\ F°’Street City Province Postal Code

PART 1: Temporary Change RequestedPlease check the appropriate boxes below. You may complete more than one change section on this form as long as the changes arefor the same licence number. IMPORTANT NOTE: These categories (*) requIre local governmentlFlrst Nations commentTYPE OF CHANGE REQUESTED COMPLETE SECTIONS

F TEMPORARY CHANGE TO HOURS OF SALELiquor-Primary and Liquor-Primary Club ilcences, and Winery lounge or special event endorsements — any hours changes 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12Food-Primary licences — requests for hours of sale later than midnight* 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12Food-Primary licences — requests for hours of sale before midnight 1, 2, 3,10, 11

F TEMPORARY PATRON PARTICIPATION ENTERTAINMENT ENDORSEMENT* Food-Primary licences only 1,2,4, 10, 11,12F TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF LICENSED AREA Food-Primary licences only 1,2,5, 10,11(TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF LICENSED AREA*

Liquor-Primary and Liquor-Primary Club licences, and winery lounge or special event endorsements. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12F TEMPORARY LOCATION CHANGE* Liquor-Primary and Liquor-Primary Club licences only 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12(no Increase in patron or person capacity)F TEMPORARY LOCATION CHANGE Food-Primary licences only 1,2, 8, 10, 11(no increase in patron or person capacity)F OTHER Applies to all change requests other than these listed above 1, 2, 9, 10, 11

LCLBO23 (Lait updated 20 December 2011) 1 of 7 Temporary Change to a Liquor Licence

56

PART 2: Reason Temporary Change is RequestedDescribe event details including who is holding the event, the hours of the event and its purpose:

CS,

c\\

0ao \\‘o

\o \\‘oo ?

DATE(S) FROM: (mmlddlyy) 09 . (mmlddfyy) jC (inclusive)

PART 3: Temporary Change to Hours of SaleLiquor-Primary and Liquor-Primaiy Club licences, and lMne,y lounge or special event endorsements — any hours changesFee: $330

- Food-Primaiy icences — requests for hours of sale later than midnight* Fee: $330- Food-Primary icences — requests for hours of sale before midnight (local government/First Nations comment not required) Fee: $110

*IMPORTANT NOTE: These categories () require local governmentlFlrst Nation comment.Licensees may apply for a temporary change in hours of sale for a limited period, subject to any restrictions within the LiquorControl and Licensing Act, Regulations, branch policies and/or original temis and conditions of licensing.See Part 12 for more information on obtaining local government/First Nations comment.

Please provide the following information:Current hours of sale:

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday -

1TCLOSED r1

Requested hours of sale: (Maximum hours permitted by regulation are between 9:00 am to 4:00 am of the same business day)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

OPEN ICLOSED I

LCLBO23 2 of 7 Temporary Change to a Liquor Licence

57

PART 4: Temporary Patron Participation Entertainment Endorsement(Food-Primary licences only)

Fee: $330Licensees may apply for a patron participation entertainment endorsement for a limited period, subject to any restrictions within theLiquor Control and Licensing Act, Regulations, branch policies and/or original terms and conditions of licensing.Important Note: This application process requires comment from your local govemment!First Nation.See Part 12 for more information on this process.Describe the type of entertaInment you are requesting:

Patron participation must end by midnight unless approved by LCLB and local government/First Nations. There are restrictions relatedto forms of entertainment, sound systems, etc. if you are uncertain about any of the details of your proposal, please consult withlicensing staff at LCLB in Victoria (see contact information in Part 11).

PART 5: Temporary Extension of Licensed Area (food-primary licences only) Fee: $110This change enables licensees to apply for a temporary extension of their establishment’s licensed areas for a limited period, subjectto any restrictions within the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Regulations, branch policies and/or original terms and conditions oflicensing. Approval of this temporary change request permits the licensee to operate only at the capacity on the face of their currentlicence plus the capacity of the extension area. If in doubt, consult with licensing staff at LCLB in Victoria (see Part 11 for contact info).This application process does not require comment from your local governmentlFlrst Nation.Please provide the following Information and documents:J Current total capacity, including patios (as shown on licence);] Identify the area (person/patron as shown on licence) to be extended;c Floor plan of the extended area showing how perimeter is defined, dimensions and its physical relationship to existing

licensed areas, where the extension is indoors or within a permanent structure.Floor plan must have occupant load of the extended area marked/stamped on the plans by provincial fire or buildingauthority (or designate).Provide proposed capacity of extended area if extension is outside; and

Where the extension area is not on property owned or controlled by the licensee, provide wriften approval for such use from theproperty owner.

PART 6: Temporary Extension of Licensed Area(liquor-primary, liquor-primary club licence and winery lounge and special events endorsements only) Fee: $330Licensees may apply for a temporary extension of their licensed areas for a limfted period, subject to any restrictions within the LiquorControl and Licensing Act, Regulations, branch policies and/or original terms and conditions of licensing. Approval of this temporarychange request permits the licensee to operate at the capacity on the face of their current licence plus the capacity of the extensionarea.

Important Note: This application process requires comment from your local govemmentlFirst Nation.See Part 12 for more information on this process.Please provide the following information and documents:

Current total capacity, including patios (as shown on licence);Identify the area(s) to be extended;Floor plan of the extended area(s) showing how perimeter is defined, dimensions and its physical relationship to existinglicensed areas:• Floor plan must have occupant load of the extended area marked/stamped on the plans by provincial fire or building

authority (or designate) where the extension is indoors or within a permanent structure.• Provide proposed person capacity of extended area(s) if extension is outside; and

‘Where the proposed area is not on property owned or controlled by the licensee, provide written approval for such use from theproperty owner.


58

PART 7: Temporary Location Change (liquor-primary and liquor-primary club licences only) Fee: $330(no incrsase in patron or person capacity)Licensees may apply for a temporary change of location of one or more licensed areas in their establishment, to accommodate specialevents but this change permits no increase in licensed capacity. Proposed changes must comply with occupant load limitations.Important Note: This application process requires comment from your local govemmentiFlrst Nation.See Part 12 for more information on this process.

Current area capacities, as shown on licence:

Area #1 j Area #2 j Area #3 Area #4 j Patio #1 ( Patio #2(Proposed temporary changes in capacity (no increase in total capacity permitted):Area #1 Area #2 Area #3 Area #4 j Patio #1 Patio #2(

Please attach the following documents:

Floor plan of the proposed area(s) showing how perimeter is defined, dimensions and its physical relationship to existing licensedareas.• Floor plan must have occupant load marked/stamped on the plans by provincial fire or building authority (or designate), wherethe extension Is indoors or within a permanent structure.• Provide proposed capacity of the new area if outdoors.

J Where the proposed area is not on property owned or controlled by the licensee, provide written approval for such use from theproperty owner.

PART 8: Temporary Location Change (food-primary licences only) Fee: $110(no increase in patron orperson capacity)Licensees may apply for a temporary change of location of one or more licensed areas in their establishment, to accommodate specialevents but this change permits no increase in licensed capacity. Proposed changes must comply with occupant load limitations.Important Note: This application process does not require comment from your local governmentlFlrst Nation.Current area capacities, as shown on licence:

Area #11 Area #2 Area #3J Area #4r interior loungej

Patio #11 Patio #21

Proposed temporary changes in capacity (no increase in total capacity permitted):Area #11 Area #2 f Area #31 Area #41 Ititerior lounge

Patio #1J Patio #2j

Please attach the following documents:

Floor plan of the proposed area showing how perimeter is defined, dimensions and its physical relationship to existing licensedareas.• Floor plan must have occupant load markedlstamped on the plans by provincial building or fire authority (or designate), wherethe extension is indoors or within a permanent structure.• Provide proposed capacity of the new area if outdoors.Where the proposed area is not on property owned or controlled by the licensee, provide written approval for such use from theproperty owner.

Proposed temporary changes in capacity (no increase in total capacity permitted):


59

PART 9: OtherFee: $110 for each requestComplete this section if you are requesting a change other than those listed in Part 1, page 1.Describe your request in detail, using additional pages if required.

If your request requires an exercise of discretion: provide a written submission detailing why a request for discretion should beapproved. All documentation to support your request for discretion must be submitted together in one package; the branch will notconsider additional materials submitted after a completed application is received. For more information on requests for discretion, seesection 4.1.2 of the Licensing Policy Manual (http:llwww.pssg.gov.bc.caIlclbIdocs-formsIlclb2O7policy-llcensing.pdf). Requests fordiscretion should be submitted at least two months prior to the proposed event.

DATE(S) FROM: J TO: J (inclusive) TIME(S):(mmlddlyy) (mmldd!yy)

PART 10: DeclarationMy signature (the licensee’s) below indicates I understand and acknowledge:

All of the information given is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Section 15(2) of the Liquor Control and LicensingAct states, “A person applying for the issue, renewal, transfer or amendment of a licence who fails to disclose a material factrequired by the form of application or makes a false or misleading statement in the form of application, commits an offence”.Signature of applicants (signature of signing officer of a company or society, sole proprietor or ll partners in a partnership. Anagent or lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant may not sign the application on behalf of the applicants.):

Name:[ //‘//rO/V .ThW/CJ Al. Position: Date:(last I first! middle)

(mmld yy)

Signature:__________________________________________________________Name: J / ,/“ Position: Date:

(last! first I middle)(mmkldlyy)

Signature:_______________________________________________________________________Name:J Position: Date:

(last! first I middle)(mmlddlyy)

Signature:___________________________________________________________________________

Name: Position: ( Date:(last! first I middle)

(mm!ddlyy)

Signature:___________________________________________________________________________LCLBO23 5 of 7 Temporary Change to a Liquor Licence

60

PART 11: Application Fees - Payment OptionsFees may be paid by cheque, money order, debit or credit card and are non-refundable. Debit transactions can only be made inperson at the Victoria Head Office. Submit the payment with the application form. Do not mail cash.Fee

ymes by (check () one): TOTAL FEE Submitted: $ f 3fcheque, payable to Minister of Finance (If cheque is returned non-sufficient funds, a $30 fee will be charged)F money order, payable to Minister of FinanceF VISA F MasterCard F AMEX

if paying by credit card please provide credit card details below...

Credit card Number: Expiry Date:I /Name of cardholder (as it appears on card):

SIgnature of cardholder:

________________________________________________________

Or you may send In the application without credit card Information, but you must telephone LCLB Head Office directly to providethe credit card number details. if so, please confirm by checking the box below:F I will call Victoria Head Office at 250-962-5787 or 1-866-209-2111 to provide credit card Information andunderstand that no action can proceed with my application until the application fee is paid In fulL

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor GeneralLiquor Control and Licensing Branch

LocatIon: 4th Floor, 3350 Douglas St., Victoria BC V8Z 3L1For Mall Only: P0 Box 9292 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9J8

Phone: 250 952-5787 Fax: 250 952-7066 Web: www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/IcIb E-mail: liquor.licensinggov.bc.ca

PART 12: Local GovernmentlFirst Nation Comments lOBJECTlON jNO OBJECTION

Comments:—_____________________________

Name of MunicipalitylRegional DistrictlFirst Nations:

Name (print)

______

Phone:

___________

Title:

____ ________________________

____ ____

E-mail:

__________

Signature:

____________________________

Date:

_____________

LCLBO236 of 7 Temporary Change to a LIquor LIcence

61

PART 13: What Happens Next?The temporary change application process:

1. If the requested temporary change(s) require local government/First Nation comment, the applicant musttake the completed application form and all required documents to their local government/First Nation andrequest that the local government/First Nation complete and sign Part 12.2. The applicant will submit the signed application, all required documents and application fee to the VictoriaHead Office (LCLB).Note: Applicants must ensure they submit their completed application a minimum of fourteen (14)business days (or two (2) months, if it’s a request for discretion - see Part 9) before the proposedchange. Otherwise, your application will not be accepted and will be returned to you.3. The LCLB licensing staff will review the application package and advise the applicant by phone, mail orfax, of any information or documents required before the application can be processed.4. LCLB licensing staff will request comments from the local liquor inspector.5. If required, the local liquor inspector will work with the applicant on security and related issues.6. LCLB licensing staff will review the comments from the local government/First Nation (if applicable) andlocal liquor inspector.

7. LCLB staff will contact the applicant by, fax or mail to let them know whether or not the change has beenapproved. The applicant will receive LCLB’s decision in writing.

edom of Information and Privacy Act - The information requested on this form is collected for the purposeobtaining or making changes to a liquor licence application. All personal information is collected under theauthority of Section 15 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act (RSBC 1996, c.267). Questions should be directedto: Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, Freedom of Information Officer, P0 Box 9292, STN PROV GOVT, Ioria, BC V8W 9J8. Ph: In Victoria, 250 952-5787 Outside Victoria, 1 866 209-2111. Fax: 250 952-7066J

LCLBO237 of 7 Temporary Change to a Liquor Licence

62

—— — — -U

—4

—I

-vi0

;Qc

C\’ i

C-.

7)/

3jcP

‘

-. t_/“

C

3.

NN

4-

1 ?i rfl

•10o’) .- ii.2

r.

.c’i

‘p

c0

5

—

C)

C

pC-

NN

‘

Ji

p 2’-

j

F’-

£(pro

—

63

•\\\\

V

“—I

I

/

I

)

I/

I,,

1.

41

&

LV

> 1/1c/i

V64

riounilit rinit iviwsag I a I “i- I

Music Festival

rom: Hackett, James MEM:EX ([email protected])

Sent: May-15-12 5:09:36 PMTh: ‘[email protected] ([email protected])

Cc: ‘[email protected]’ ([email protected])

Hi,As per our conversation.

Please send in amended application for Temp Extension of LP

We will transfer the fees of $110.00 from Job # 6805088-12 (Temp Extension of FP).

Kindest regards,

James HackettCase Manager

Liquor Control and LicensingTEL: 250-952-7053FAX- 250-952-7066

Applications and info available at:httn://wwwjssov.bc.ca/Iclb/

This message is confidential and is intended onlyfor the individual(s) named as it may containprivileged information. Ifyou are not the named addressee(s) you should not disseminate,

distribute or copy any of the enclosed information including any and or all attachments.Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited.

Ifyou receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mailfromyour system.

http://snl 37w.sntl 3 7.mail.live.com/maillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=bb546d69-9ebO-lie... 15/05/2012

65

Crusade Security Inc.Vancouver - #520 88 East Pender St

Abbotsford - #204 - 33386 S. Fraser WayFax: (604) 855-7108

Toll Free: 1-800-931-7107www.crusadesecuritv.ca.

mlTh1.1Date: March 5, 2012Quote#: 12-022812Company Name: HWY 101 Music FestivalCompany Representative: HeatherAddress:Contact Information: Phone: 6047401859 Other:Ship ToAddress: Sunshine CoastSite Representative: HeatherContact Information: hibrown@hotmail .com

Service Description:Event Security for 2 days. Labour Long weekend September 1-2 2012, Travel and Accomidateto be finalized on the award of the contract

Service / Delivery Date:

Quantity Description Hour$ Rate Aflioun’t1 Security Supervisor for two

days.8 Event Security Staff for two

12 $ 21.50 $ 4,128.0016days.

2 1 First Aider for two days. 12 $ 24.00 $ 576.00

$

$

$

$

Subtotal

H ST

$ 5,268.00

632.16

$ 5,900.16

2 12 $ 23.50 $ 564.00

Total

66

BRITISHCOLUMBIA

Establishment Name:Licence Name:Mailing Address:

Location Address:

Liquor Control and Licensing BranchLiquor Contml and Licensing Act

LIQUOR PRIMARY LICENCE

PENDER HARBOUR GOLF CLUBPENDER HARBOUR GOLF CLUBBOX 154MADEIRA PARK, BC VON 2H0

13823 Sunshine Coast HwyMADE IRA PARK, BC VON 2H0

Issued to: Pender Harbour Golf Club Society

Third Party Operator:

Hours of Sale:NIA

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Open 9:00AM 9:00AM 9:00AM 9:00AM 9:00AM 9:00AM 11:00AM

Close 11:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM

Capacity: PersonOl 6

TERMS AND CONDlTIONS:•The terms and conditions to which this licence is subject include the terms and conditions contained in the publication ‘A Guide for

Liquor Licensees in British Columbia’ as that publication is amended from time to time.

• Liquor may only be sold, served and consumed within the areas outlined in red on the official plan, unless otherwise endorsed orapproved by the LCLB.

• Subject to terms and conditions specified in the restriction or approval letter(s). A copy of restriction or approval letter(s) to be keptwith current liquor licence.

• Take-out window extension permitted within the area outlined in red on the official plan.

\

Local Government:LDB Addresses:

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICTMADEIRA GLS #93SECHELT GLS #230

December 03, 2011

Printed Date General Manager

Licence Number113273Expiry Date

December 31, 2012

LCLB098 (Rev. 12/02)

67

c. 1—,

I,.

It3.

LC

LB

OFF

ICIA

LPL

AN

MU

STB

EK

EPT

WIT

HL

IQU

OR

LIC

EN

CE

AN

DA

VA

ILA

BL

EFO

RIN

SPE

CT

ION

AT

ALL

TIM

ES

Dat

eIs

sued

:M

ayI6

,2008

-

Lic

ence

#:

LP

1132

73G

ener

alM

anag

er

0 WA

U

aa

[_J

a•4

1

0gA

,(rC

OM

fApla

’a

EXIS

TING

MAI

Nw

oaPL

.IU

tA

dV4IZ

,M

rnIn

ptt

4oR

Rw

RG

cL1C

w5

r,

I

68

HIGHWAY 101Uhi I1j

j3!IJsIe

To: The Sechelt Detachment of the R.C.M.P.

Re: Notice of Public Event

We would like to notifj you that we are holding a country and rock music festivalon September and 2IId The event will be held at the Pender Harbour GolfCourse with camping available at The Pender Harbour Lions Park. Parking will beavailable at the Petro Canada on Highway 101 and Pender Harbour SecondarySchool with a shuttle providing transportation to the events grounds.

We would like to request your presence at the event. We would also like to putforth an invitation to any off duty members who would like to volunteer forsecurity.

At this time we would like to thank you for your help and we look forward toworking with you to make this a safe and fun event.

Any questions or for more information please feel free to contact:

Heather Brown at (604)-740-l 859 or

Email Melissah Charboneau at [email protected]

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Highway 101 Music Festival

69

—

_____

IvsIh4.J€Ri)ARBOCJRcoIç dim

January 25, 2012

To Whom it May Concern.

Please be advised that the Pender Harbour Golf Club Society has given Heather Brownpermission to apply for License to operate a Beer Garden during music festival on Septemberand 21(1, 2012.This would be adjacent to the Clubhouse at 13823 Sunshine Coast Highway.

Yours truly.

Jan Watson

Past President

13823 Sunshine Coast Highway, P.O. Box 154, Madeira Park, B.C. VON 2F10Telephone: (604) 883-9541 Fax: (604) 883-0248 Email: penderharbourgoLfgmail.com

Websile: www.penderharbourgolfclub.com

70

•1€R1)aRBUR E.o1ç cUJB

January 22,2012

To Whom it may concern.

Please be advised that the Pender Harbour Golf Club Society has given Heather Brownpermission to hold a Music Festival on their property at 13823 Sunshine Coast Highway onSeptember 1st and 2nd 2012.

Yours truly.

Jan Watson

Past President

13823 Sunshine Coast Highway, P.O. Box 154, Madeira Park, B.C. VON 2H0Telephone: (604) 883-9541 Fax: (604) 883-0248 Email: penderharbourgolfgrnaiI.comWebsite: www.penderharbourgolfclub.com

71

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 13, 2012 TO: Planning & Development Committee June 21, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager Recreation Services

RE: Acoustic Panel Upgrade Gibson’s Area Community Centre Award RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Planning & Development Committee receives the report on Acoustic Panel Upgrade Gibson’s Area Community Centre Award as information; and AND THAT this tender be awarded to Soundwerks effective June 21, 2012 for $118,214 plus taxes; And that the Chair and Corporate Officer be authorized to sign a contract. And further that staff be authorized to act on this recommendation immediately. Background The Acoustics Panel Upgrade Project at the Gibson’s & Area Community Centre (RFP 12-183) was recently tendered. The RFP was set up to gather bids for this project and to be completed in July 2012. Attached is the purchasing report. Discussion The overall cost of this contract is $118,214 plus HST. This project is within the budgeted amount of $135,000. This contract award will meet the requirements of the RFP for sound attenuation to a reverberation rate of 1.5 seconds from the present 7.3 seconds. This should allow for future special events as well as increased satisfaction of current users. This project requires Board approval due to the amount. Natural materials will be used in the sound baffling.

71 a

ANNEX KK

RFP AWARD 12 183 Page 1


AWARD REPORT / PURCHASING

Date: June 13, 2012

Attention: Bruce Bauman RE: RFP No. 12 183

Acoustic Panel Upgrade for the Project Titled: Gibsons & Area Community Centre

What follows is a summary and recommendation for the contract to provide services detailed in the Request for Proposal (RFP) noted above. The offering was issued as a Request for Proposal on May 11, 2012 and closed on June 6, 2012 there were no addendums issued. Documents were posted on BC Bid and advertised in the local Coast Reporter. Two contractors attended the mandatory site meeting on May 22, 2012. One contracting company submitted a proposal on the closing date. The proposal was compliant with meeting all specifications, as listed below:

Name Total Soundwerks Audio Video Systems Inc, Gibsons BC $ 118,214.29

HST Extra STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That a contract for the Acoustic Panel Upgrade Project be awarded to Soundwerks Audio

Video Systems Inc, in the amount of $118,214.29 by reason of overall point score in meeting the objectives of the project.

Robert McKee, Purchasing Officer Sunshine Coast Regional District

71 b

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 2012

1. Development Control

A. Please refer to the attached tables titled SCRD Subdivision and Development Activity and

SCRD Bylaw Amendment and Permit Activity for a summary of development activities. B. Crown Land/Foreshore, Water Licence Application Referrals, Pesticide Use Application

Referrals, UREP referrals. One new Crown Referral was received: Electoral Areas A File 2003551 by Cranston and Stunell for a domestic Water licence on Ruby Lake.

C. Governmental Referrals (District of Sechelt / Town of Gibsons / Islands Trust)

No new referrals were received.

D. Agricultural Land Commission Applications

No new applications were received.

E. Subdivision Activity

One new application was received. Electoral Area B 2012-02209 by John Theed for John Richmond for a 2 lot subdivision. The property is located on either side of the highway and adjacent to Redrooffs Road in Halfmoon Bay. The proposal is to un-hook the property; one property would be accessed from Redrooffs Road and the other from Trout Lake Road.

F. Development Variance Permits

Two new DVP applications were received: Electoral Area B 310.163 (Horst) located at 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway, Halfmoon Bay to legalize an already constructed deck and auxiliary building. 310.164 (Benner) located at 5402 Donley Drive to legalize a recently constructed auxiliary building (workshop). On-Going Applications

72

ANNEX L

Electoral Area A 337.124 (Sanders) located at 4820 Francis Peninsula Road, to vary setback to the ocean to allow a deck extension. Subject to’s met. Permit issued May 29, 2012.

G. Board of Variance Applications

No new applications were received in May.

H. Building Permits Staff reviewed 21 building permit applications in May to confirm Zoning Bylaw and Official Community Plan compliance.

I. Development Permits

Two new applications were received. Electoral Area D DP D-111 with a variance to legalize an already constructed retaining wall within a stream riparian area and setback. This application was approved by the APC and will be considered at the June PDC meeting. Electoral Area E DP E-95 with a variance to replace and add to an existing non-conforming deck within a front yard setback.

J. Bylaws

On-Going Applications Electoral Areas B to F Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.143, SCRD bylaw to propose amending Bylaw 310 to establish all of Electoral Areas B to F as areas where the Board may consider issuing a temporary use permit. Amendments to Bylaw 522 proposed and considered at April PDC. Referrals sent to agencies. Public information meeting scheduled for Thursday July 5 at SCRD Board Room, notice in June 22nd Coast Reporter and June 29 SCRD Bulletin Board Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.139, SCRD bylaw to propose amending the definition of floor area with respect to enclosed garages. Referrals sent to agencies. Public information meeting scheduled for Thursday July 5 at SCRD Board Room, notice in June 22nd Coast Reporter and June 29 SCRD Bulletin Board

73

Electoral Area A Zoning Amendment Bylaw 337.101 (Klasen for Newton) for a tourist accommodation on an island near Hardy Island. Will be reported to the June PDC. OCP Amendment 432.20 and Zoning Bylaw Amendment 337.104 (Webb and Cunningham) an application has been received to amend the OCP designation from Light Industrial to Comprehensive Residential B and the zoning from I1 to R3 to enable the construction of a second dwelling on a property that is zoned industrial but primarily used for residential. This bylaw received 1st reading in May. Referrals will be sent in June. Electoral Area B OCP and Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. 325.20 and 310.137 (Brown) for 5322 Backhouse Road to permit a two-lot subdivision. Staff responded to MoTI regarding subdivision application. Report considered at April PDC regarding referrals and access. Public hearing scheduled for June 13. Report setting out the terms for the covenants provided to the May PDC. OCP and Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. 325.21 and 310.142 (Gidora) for 8066 & 8070 Redrooffs Road regarding sale of poultry and eggs. Staff are awaiting confirmation from the owners about what they wish to do regarding the variance. It is understood that sale of eggs from the site has stopped. Report will be provided to June PDC OCP and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Nos. 325.9 and 310.134 (Jorgens) on Curran Road in Halfmoon Bay. This application has been hold on for the past couple of years while the sewage treatment upgrade and related servicing agreement were finalized. The details of the upgrade and servicing agreement are in place and this application can now proceed to public hearing. Electoral Area D OCP Amendment Bylaw 375.11 and Zoning Bylaw 310.135 (Morrissey and others) to allow 12 lots to subdivide. Covenants drafted for each property owner and are being registered. Report will be provided to June PDC regarding progress on registering the covenants. Electoral Area E OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw nos. 600.3 and 310.140 (Celebration House). Rezoning to permit Public Assembly. Staff worked with the applicant to arrange public information meeting held on May 8) and referrals sent to agencies. Bylaw 600.3 received first reading, Board reviewed and amended the draft TUP. A report was sent to APC in May, staff attended the meeting. Electoral Area F

74

310.141 Implementation of the West Howe Sound OCP: A summary of the bylaw amendment process was presented to the Planning and Development Committee in May along with recommendation for second reading and scheduling of the public hearing. The public hearing was held on June 12th at Eric Cardinall Hall.

K. Tree Cutting Permits One new application was received. Electoral Area B TCP B-23 to legalize 8 trees that were cut without a permit in Halfmoon Bay. The permit was issued in May.

L. Strata Conversion Applications

No new applications were received: On-Going Applications: Electoral Area D SC D-3 (Sankey & Moul) located at 2417 Grant Rd, Roberts Creek.

2. Long Range Planning and Major Projects (A) Agricultural Area Plan Stage I – Background Report:

AEL Agroecological Consulting has been hired to complete Stage 1 of the Agricultural Area Plan. The first meeting with the consultant and Project Management Committee is scheduled for June 8, 2012.

(B) Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan – The Halfmoon Bay OCP Advisor Group had one formal meeting in May where the map showing proposed land use designations was discussed. The goal is to simplify the new OCP without providing drastic changes to the density currently in place. The discussion led to the idea of having focus group meetings at the SCR office to discuss in more detail the proposed land use designations.

The three focus group sessions took place in May as well. The first meeting was focused on the residential designations; combining six designations into two. The second meeting was focused on the rural residential and resource designations and the third focused on the remaining designations including community recreation, commercial, multi-family and the lands within the expanded area around the Sechelt Inlets.

(C) Roberts Creek OCP – Staff are reviewing the comments provided at and following the

public information meeting and are arranging meetings with agencies for May/June.

75

(D) Zoning Bylaw No. 310 review – staff continued its staff work group review of a draft new zoning bylaw to replace Zoning Bylaw No. 310. Staff also continued to meet with the AAC sub-committee in May to discuss in detail a newly drafted agricultural zone to replace the existing ‘RU3’ zone, and potential new agricultural land use regulations within other zones.

(E) Howe Sound Community Forum meeting – staff arranged and facilitated a meeting of the

forum on May 25th which included a site visit to BURNCO’s proposed aggregate mine.

3. Other

(A) Roberts Creek Pathway and Streetscape Improvements – Staff continued to liaise with the contractor during the final stages of construction to address minor deficiencies.

(B) Staff made an application for funding for wage subsidy for a Bear Aware Coordinator for

the summer of 2012. Planning Staff have been notified that the funding application has been approved. The new Bear Aware Coordinator started in May 2012 for a term ending in November 2012.

(C) Staff commenced drafting the RFP for the geotechnical updates for Halfmoon Bay,

Elphinstone and West Howe Sound. The RFP will be issued in June and a consultant firm is expected to commence review this summer.

(D) Planning staff attended the Sunshine Coast Biodiversity Summit on May 31st hosted by the

Ruby Lake Lagoon Society at the Sunshine Coast Botanical Garden in Sechelt.

(G) Staff attended the PIBC Conference (H) Regional Housing Committee – request for proposal for not-for-profit society to manage

the coordinator issued with closing date of Monday June 11, 2012 ______________________________ Steven Olmstead, General Manager of Planning and Development Division

76

BYLAW AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

Zoning Amendments 1 1310 5 12 6 7 2 3337 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 1

OCP AmendmentsWest Howe Sound 0 0 0 1 0 0Elphinstone 0 2 0 1 0 0Roberts Creek 0 2 0 1 1 1Halfmoon Bay 0 2 0 2 1 1Egmont/Pender Hrbr 2 5 0 0 0 0Hillside 0 0 0 0 0 0Twin Creeks 0 0 1 0 0 0

Totals 10 29 8 14 6 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITS AND BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

Bylaw 310 7 3 13 14 10 3 1 1Bylaw 337 8 5 7 7 9 1

Totals 15 8 20 21 19 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 3 4 7 6 2 8 1 1Elphinstone 6 4 6 5 4 2 1 1Roberts Creek 3 8 12 5 10 10 1 3 4Halfmoon Bay 4 7 3 8 10 6 1 1Egmont/Pender Hrbr 3 4 5 2 5 5 0

Totals 16 23 33 26 31 29 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 44 38 29 45 37 35 0 1 1 5 7Elphinstone 75 58 44 45 49 44 2 5 4 3 14Roberts Creek 57 68 59 54 71 56 3 2 1 5 11Halfmoon Bay 83 86 61 62 70 64 5 6 4 5 20Egmont-Pender Hrbr 111 153 93 117 105 70 4 8 5 7 24

370 403 286 323 332 269 14 22 15 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 1 1ElphinstoneRoberts Creek 1 1Halfmoon Bay 4 4Egmont-Pender Hrbr 3 1 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Electoral Area

Totals

Crown Land Permit Applications

Year

Year

Bylaw Amended

Official Community Plan

Totals

Zoning BylawYear

BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW

Year

Official Community Plan

77

Electoral 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral 2008 2009 2010 2011Area TOTAL May YTD Area TOTAL May YTD

A 12 8 4 8 A 55 20 8 16B 2 3 4 1 1 2 B 7 7 13 2 2 4D 5 3 8 5 2 D 15 14 24 12 4E 4 2 3 8 1 E 10 6 8 15F 6 5 3 0 1 F 42 34 5 0 2

Totals 29 21 22 22 1 6 Totals 129 81 58 45 2 10

Subdivision Application Fees Collected Subdivisions Receiving Final SCRD ApprovalYear Amount Collected Electoral 2010 2011 20122008 Area May YTD2009 A 5 32010 B 2 12011 D 2 3 2 42012 E 0 4 1 YTD F 1 3 1

Totals 10 14 2 6


A $16,875 AB B D $32,500 DE $29,000 E 0.985 F $49,600 $77,500 F

Totals $49,600 $139,000 $16,875 $0 $0 $0 Totals 0 0.985 0 0 0 0


A $2,000 A $66,500B $6,000 $6,000 BD $4,900 $12,250 $2,450 $12,250 $2,450 D $2,450E $24,900 $7,350 E $2,450F $4,900 $2,450 $34,300 $2,450 $29,400 F $2,450

Totals $9,800 $39,600 $42,750 $30,050 $0 $31,850 Totals $66,500 $0 $2,450 $2,450 $2,450 $2,450* Does not include District of Sechelt. * Does not include District of Sechelt.

Development Cost Charges Collected From Building Permits Strata Conversion Applications Reviewed& Subdivision - District of Sechelt Electoral 2010 2011

Year Subdivision Building Permits Totals Area May YTD2007 A 12008 B 1 12009 D 1 12010 E

September F 12011 Totals 4 1 0 1

Electoral 2009 2010 2011Area May YTD Subdivision Exclusion Non-Farm

A 1BD 2 2E 1 1F

Totals 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0

Year

Year

Fees Received For Money In Lieu Of Park DedicationYear

$31,489.00$15,455.00$22,165.00$19,947.00$4,325.00$4,325.00

2012

Lands Received as Park Dedication (Hectares)Year

2012

Development Cost Charges Collected From Subdivision*

$0

$341,320

2012

$241,200

$5,600$97,350

Proposed # of Parcels Through Subdivision Application Reviewed*

2012 2012

Subdivision Applications Received By Area*Year

$101,100

Development Cost Charges Collected From Building Permits*

$34,650

2012ALR Applications Reviewed

$21,450$118,800

$37,400 $107,251$21,450

2012

Year

2012

$0 $0 $0$0 $0

$69,851

78

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 8th, 2012

TO: Planning and Development Committee- June 2ls, 2012

FROM: Peter Longhi, Chief Building Official and Bylaw Manager

RE: Bylaw Statistics Report ending May 31st, 2012

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the Chief Building Official’s report regarding Bylaw statistics be accepted forinformation.

BACKGROUND

Building activity has been particularly strong in Area A once again with uniform activityin all other Areas as indicated on the monthly report sheet statistics.

Overall permit revenue for the first half of 2012 has been tracked and compared toprevious five year statistics showing unfortunately a slight downward trend for permitrevenues thus far. In 2010 and 2011, the permit revenues were slightly higher as aresult of permit fees generated by the St. Mary’s Hospital initial permit in 2010 anddeferred permit revenue applied in 2011. The resultant permit volume declinerepresents an approximate reduction of 20% in revenues, (discounting the hospitalproject permits), so far this year compared to the last five year averages.

The Hospital permit for renovations, (last phase), may be taken out this year whichwould help revenues overall, but at this time it remains to be seen when this will beapplied for.

Other significant projects at planning stages have yet to materialize and may not resultin building permits taken until next year.

Generally, uptake on the SCRD energy rebate initiative has been lower than expectedas comparable government incentives have been dwindling.

Staff will continue to closely monitor building activities and revenues as current activityremains steady but not stellar.

Respectfully

Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager

\\scrd.ad\files\users\peteri\My Documents\Bylaw stats- may 201 2.docx

79

ANNEX M

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BP5700 Page: 1Date: Jun 04,2012 lime: 12:13pm

Permit Type: All Status Code: ISSUEDDistrict: All Year: 2012Area: All Areas Period: 1 To 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORTFor the Period: January to May 2012

Three Year Construction Type ComparisonWork Code Description 2012 2011 2010

ADDITION AND ALTERATION 41 34 41WOODSTOVE/CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY DWELLING 0 1 0COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 5 5 4DEMOLITION 5 3

AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 0 2 0INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 0 0 0MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS 0 0 0NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0SWIMMING POOL 1 1 2plumbing fixtures only for SFD 1 3 1PERMIT RENEWAL 0 0 0SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 41 44 47

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 0 0 0Special Inspection 2 2 0TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 1TENANT IMPROVEMENT 1 0 0

UPGRADE 0 0 1RETAINING WALL 6 7 7WOODSTOVEJCHIMNEY 0 0 0

AUXILIARY BUILDING 23 21 36CHANGEOFUSE 4 1 1

Total Permits: 130 124 146

Total BiWngs: 247,tosTotal Project Values: $ 16,528,389.00 $ 17,762,100.00 $ 25,417,730.00

Cumulative Values: $ 16,528,389.00 $ 17,762,100.Qfi $ 25,417,730.00

District Breakdown

District Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project Values

Area A 40 62,262.00 5,952,389.00AREA B 29 36,485.50 3,612,000.00Area D 20 23,442.50 2,376,000.00Area E 12 22,014.00 1,932,000.00AREA F 25 28,040.25 2,521,000.00Sechelt Indian Government District 4 1,951.75 135,000.00

Grand Totals: 130 $ 174,196.00 $ 16,528,389.00

Rate Breakdown

Rate Name Total Number of Permits Using Rates Rate Total BillIngs

APPLICATION FEE 105 20,587.25APPLICATION PAYMENT 104 -20,587.25BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE EXPENSE 105 210.00SPECIAL& REINSPECTION 1 100.00CIVIC ADDRESS 21 3,675.00CHANGE OF USE 1 100.00SUBSOIL DRAINAGE 53 2,930.00MICROFILMING 113 4,806.00PENALTY 13 3,613.50

7,330.00COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT 780

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BP5700 Page: 1Date: Jun 04, 2012 Time: 12:11 pm

Permit Type: All Status Code: ISSUEDDistrict: All Year: 2012Area: All Areas Period: 5 To 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORTFor the Month of: May 2012

Three Year Construction Type ComparisonWork Code Description 2012 2011 2010

ADDITIONANDALTERATION 8 10 9WOOD STOVE/CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY DWEWNG 0 0 0COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0DEMOLITION 2 0 0AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 0 0 0INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 0 0 0MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS 0 0 0NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0SWIMMING POOL 0 1 1plumbing fixtures only for SFD 0 2 1PERMIT RENEWAL 0 0 0SINGLE FAMILY DWEWNG 13 10 8SINGLE FAMILY DWEWNG 0 0 0Special Inspection 0 0 0TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 0TENANT IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0UPGRADE 0 0 0RETAINING WALL 0 0 1WOOD STOVE/CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY BUILDING 4 1 7CHANGE OF USE 3 0 0

Total Permits: 30 24 27

Total Bllungs: ‘4559’5 35,309.00 43,341.00

Total Project Values: $ 4,495,000.00 $ 4,287,000.00 $ 5,283,000.00

Cumulative Values: $ 16,528,389.00 $ 17,762,100.00 $ 25,417,730.00

District BreakdownDistrict Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project Values

Area A 11 18,720.50 1,833,000.00AREA B 3 9,516.00 926,000.00Area D 5 1,823.00 109,000.00Area E 4 6,062.50 426,000.00AREA F 6 12,198.50 1,201,000.00Sechelt Indian Government District 1 0.00 0.00

Grand Totals: 30 $ $ 4,495,000.00

Rate BreakdownRate Name Total Number of Permits Using Rates Rate Total Billings

APPLICATION FEE 25 4,520.00APPLICATION PAYMENT 25 -4,520.00BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE EXPENSE 24 48.00CIVIC ADDRESS 10 1,750.00CHANGE OF USE 1 100.00SUBSOIL DRAINAGE 16 940.00MICROFILM ING 25 1,270.00PENALTY 1 107.00PLUMBING FIXTURES 15 3,377.00RESIDENTIAL PERMIT 38,481.502881

0 C

1200

00

1000

00

8000

0

6000

0

4000

0

2000

0 0

Bui

ldin

gP

erm

itR

even

ue20

07-2

012

Januar

y-M

ay20

12

I

1011

12

IF

[

12

34

56

78

9

Mo

nth

82

I m

/

A77 7

Bui

ldin

gP

erm

itB

illin

gsFi

rst

Hal

fJa

nu

ary

toM

ay20

07-2

012 27

1407

2298

73

3000

00

2500

00

2000

00

1500

00

1000

00

5000

0 01

23

45

6

83

AREA 'A' MINUTES

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT REFERRALS ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ROOM 107, PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL

13639 SUNSHINE COAST HWY, MADEIRA PARK WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:00PM

Present: G. Craig (Chair), C. McEachern, A. Skelley, G. Park, L. Falk, F. Mauro (Area A

Director) and C. Patterson (Secretary) Regrets: J. McOuat, R. Metcalfe, J. McDonald, G. McBain, J. Hall. Delegates: J. Theed CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 P.M. MINUTES 1. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of April 25, 2012 2. Planning and Development Committee Minutes of April 19, 2012 Motion: Moved by C. McEachern and seconded by G. Parks

To adopt the Minutes of April 25, 2012 for Area 'A' and to accept the balance of the minutes with thanks. PASSED

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 3. OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Application No. 432.31 / 337.103 (Bel Investments

Ltd.) Lengthy discussion with major concerns noted:

• A public hearing will be necessary, with the neighbours notified, before processing. • Due to the extension of the last two floats to the east there is a concern that it may

impede access to the eastern neighbouring dock. Motion: Moved by A. Skelley and seconded by L. Falk

It is moved that this APC has reservations regarding its being asked to comment on zoning over water leases and would like clarification of its role and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the APC is prepared to consider rezoning of the existing water lease and of any approved extension thereto, and a corresponding amendment to the OCP, but will require the results of a public meeting and of the other referrals outlined in the submission for its consideration and requests that this application be referred back to the committee at this point. In addition this committee has concerns that sight lines may be affected, that proper arrangements for sewage disposal be made by the

84

ANNEX N

applicant, and that in the circumstances all owners of waterfront property and those who have moorage in the immediate vicinity be notified of, and invited to attend, any public meeting(s). PASSED

DIRECTORS REPORT: • The Board has been working on a comprehensive Strategic Plan going

forward. • Economical development in the area is going strong. Recreational

development is expanding. • The Solid Waste/Recycling Statutory Service Review is ongoing. • Volunteers are still needed to be on the Solid Waste Planning Advisory

Committee. F. Mauro is the liaison, and one volunteer has come forward. A few more volunteers would be ideal.

• SIB issued a press release in the newspaper last week regarding their position on private moorage applications. They would like a reconciliation on the Pender Harbour dock issues. The moratorium on dock development is scheduled to be over on June 30th by the provincial government.

• Statutory rights-of-way water access are for the most part undeveloped in the Pender Harbour area. Volunteers to tidy up and signage to improve visibility would be a benefit to our tourism.

• SPH Waterworks has sent out for tenders regarding the large improvement projects for the water system.

NEXT MEETING: 7:00 p.m. June 27, 2012 at Pender Harbour Secondary School ADJOURNMENT: motion to adjourn at 8:32 P.M. by C. McEachern

85

Halfmoon Bay APC Advisory Group Coopers Green, Halfmoon Bay, BC

MINUTES OF TUESDAY, May 22, 2012

Chair Catherine Gage Ex Officio member Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters

1. Call to Order

Catherine Gage, chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.

2. Agenda Motion: That the agenda be accepted as printed.

Carried Unanimously

3. Minutes

Minutes from the following meetings were received for information: 3.1 Area A- Egmont/Pender Harbour APC Minutes of April 25, 2012. 3.2 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of April 19, 2012.

Motion: That the above minutes be accepted as printed.

Carried Unanimously

4. Business Arising from Minutes and Unfinished Business None.

PRESENT Brian Lucas Alda Grames Eleanor Lenz Richard Grant Jay Corman Ron Kernohan Leonard Pakulak Joan Harvey Ray Moscrip

REGRETS Walter Powell Elise Rudland

SCRD STAFF

GUESTS Barb Bolding Willis Horst Keith Anderson

86

ANNEX O

5. New Business

5.1 Horst DPV Application for Buildings and Structures.

APC and Guest Comments/Concerns: Lack of timely and complete information: -There is concern about the validity of the map presented to the APC: that the legal survey map was altered. The APC committee is displeased that this map was sent out by the SCRD. -The notes from the SCRD said that no comments had been received from neighbours. There is concern because neighbours didn’t receive anything until Thursday or Friday: they would like to know how this could happen. They feel that they have had inadequate time to review the information provided by the SCRD. -It is suggested that the regional board meeting be delayed to give everyone equal opportunity to voice their point of view. -Neighbours question the purpose of the present meeting with the APC: if it is to collect information and make recommendations, they feel that the APC should have complete information, which they believe is not the case. -Neighbours expect that they be granted the same privilege as the applicant in having private meeting time with the APC (ie. site visit). Questions to the DPV Applicant: -Pumping and discharging water out of the swamp: concern about noise of the pump and question the testing of this water. -Concern about the concrete boat ramp and whether is going over gas line. -What are future plans for area being cleared? -Question as to whether a foreshore lease was obtained to put in the concrete pad. While permission was obtained from fisheries and the gas company, it was not known that the Crown and SIB was to be consulted for a foreshore lease. -Why did the owner not get a building permit for the original deck? It was assumed that they didn’t need a permit for a deck. Later, they added a roof and it evolved into an enclosed structure. -Is this variance requested to cover up infractions? MOTION 1: That the APC postpone providing recommendations until after next scheduled APC meeting at which time the APC will provide recommendations. That the SCRD postpone presentation of this DPV at their scheduled meeting until APC recommendations are received. Additionally, that all neighbours be notified in a timely manner as to meeting times (APC and SCRD inclusive) and that current and complete information be given to the APC and relevant neighbours.

Carried Unanimously MOTION 2: That there be a discussion of the mechanism by which neighbours may express their concerns to the APC.

Carried by Majority

87

Discussion of Motion 2: -Neighbours request that the same standard applied to them as to the applicant: don’t just include the applicant in the site visit, but neighbours as well in order to ensure equal opportunity to all concerned. -Consider arranging a separate site visit with neighbours and not just a site visit specific to the owner.

6. Directors Report: -The Ministry of Justice police plan for 5 years was reviewed. -BC Transit: requested 2 more busses; reduced travel time to ferry; and smaller busses. -BC Ferries: going to discuss passenger ferry service in July and economic zoning. -Economic Development Program report will be out soon. -The Solid Waste Management plan is almost ready. After one more meeting the public process will commence. Also, the Sechelt recycling centre will be moved to where the former trailer park used to be. -A resolution on Dark Skies was unanimously passed. -The Parks Master Plan comes out next month. -A public hearing on the 'Brown' subdivision will be held soon. -A presentation on chickens is coming next month at the SCRD. -The bike/walking path going ahead in cooperation with MOT. -The funding for the Bear Creek IPP is giving $100,000 to expand the parking lot at Dakota Ridge. -The Grant-In-Aid is being completed this Thursday. -There is continued effort to support youth: breakfast for kids etc.

7. APC Committee Discussions/Requests: None.

8. Next Meeting

Tuesday, June 26, 7:00 Coopers Green Hall.

9. Adjournment

8: 22PM ________________________ ____________________ Catherine Gage Date HMB APC Chair

88

SUNSHINE COAST REGION DISTRICT Area D Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

7:30 PM, Monday, May 28, 2012 Roberts Creek Library, 1044 Roberts Creek Road

Present: Heather Conn, Kye Goodwin, Sue Gordon, Tzaddi Gordon, Dana Gregory, Marion Jolicoer, Barry Morrow, Gerald Rainville, Bill Page (Chair), Dave Ryan (Alternate Director) Regrets: Donna Shugar (Director) Absent: Brock O'Byrne Delegation: Deacon Lowney and Gwen Matheson 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM 2. MINUTES 2.1 The Minutes of Roberts Creek (Area D) APC of March 26, 2012, were accepted as circulated. (DG/HC) M/S/Carried Note: The Area D APC did not meet in April. 2.2 The following were received for information: 2.2.1 Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) Minutes of April 25, 2012 2.2.2 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of April 19, 2012 3. NEW BUSINESS 3.1 Development Permit with a Variance Application D-111 for a retaining wall for Gwen Matheson and Deacon Lowney on Block 14 DL 904 Plan 4213, PID 011-749-458, located at 1815 Sunshine Coast Highway, Roberts Creek. MOTION: The APC supports the application for a variance as recommended by SCRD Staff Report dated May 28, 2012, page 4 of 4. (TG/DG) M/S/Carried, seven to two with SG and HC opposed and one abstention. Chair’s comment: The vote in favor of the variance is not a vote of approval, but is a resignation to the opinion that there may be more harm to the environment by removal of the wall than leaving it stand (based on the recommendation from the SCRD Building Department and the letters from the geotechnical engineer and the QEP from Geotactics Media Engineering). MOTION: The APC supports the suggestion in Paul van Poppelen’s report (Geotactics Media Engineering), page 2, paragraph 2, dated 15 December 2011, that a full riparian assessment of the creek be undertaken before any additional development is allowed within the normal riparian setback of the creek in the ditch. (KG/SG) M/S/Carried unanimously DISCUSSION: The owners stated the following. They purchased the property in April 2007 and received geotechnical advice from Mike Eivemark at that time (although no written report was submitted). The owners filled a short valley near their south property line and they believed they could build a retaining wall along Lower Road. In October 2011 they hired NB Contracting to build the wall, but chose to use concrete blocks instead of rock. No structural engineer was involved in the work. When the contractor asked if they had a ‘permit’, the owners told the contractor they had ‘a permit’, by which they meant a building permit for the house then under construction and claimed to be unaware at that time of the need for a separate permit for a wall. The contractor did not specifically ask them if they had an engineering permit for construction of the wall. The owner claims that the bottom blocks are set into hardpan and the wall is backfilled with native

89

ANNEX P

SUNSHINE COAST REGION DISTRICT Area D Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

7:30 PM, Monday, May 28, 2012 Roberts Creek Library, 1044 Roberts Creek Road

soil. A small drainage ditch at the surface at the back of the wall was constructed by the owners by shovel and filled with one truck load of drain rock. There were no other mitigating measures to handle ground water behind the wall (i.e. no drain rock or weeping tile). The owners say that additional fill (stones) has been dumped in the ditch near the base of the wall by persons unknown, altering the course of the water so that the water now runs closer to the wall than was its original path. COMMENT: Our major concerns are: (1) the wall blowing out from ground water pressure or earth tremor and the resulting costs to the environment and current or future owners of the property, including damage to downstream properties, Lower Road, its ditches, and culverts; (2) the effect on resident fish and ecosystem; (3) the effect on water quality; (4) any precedent setting aspect of allowing this wall to stand; and (5) the poor aesthetics of the existing work. COMMENT: The SCRD should ensure that fines are substantial and meaningful. The permit could easily cost more than the fine. COMMENT: Why was nothing done once the SCRD was in receipt of Paul van Poppelen's 2008 complaint? If the SCRD had acted on that, the restriction of development in a riparian zone would have been called to the attention of the owner, possibly avoiding this situation. MOTION: That the SCRD inform NB Contracting that they are required to check with the SCRD to see if a permit and proper engineering has been done before any work is done. (DG/MJ) M/S/Carried unanimously MOTION: The SCRD should be more proactive in the process of ensuring that contractors abide by the rules; and that contractors that do not get the proper permits are sanctioned. The home owner may be willing to pay the fine, but a substantial penalty to a contractor would be a deterrent. (HC/GR) M/S/Carried unanimously 4. The Director's Report was received from Dave Ryan, Alternate Director. 5. The next meeting is scheduled for June 25, at 7:00 PM. 6. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.

90

Minutes of the Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Wednesday, May 23, 2012 meeting at Frank West Hall, Elphinstone, BC Present: Lynda Chamberlin, Co-Chair Regrets: Elizabeth Nordlund Ron Kaiser Graham Chapman Absent: Patrick Fitzsimons Alan Colleypriest, Co-Chair Rob Bone Jim Gurney Carl Snazell Also Present: Delegation: David Rafael, Senior Planner, SCRD Director: Lorne Lewis Alt. Director: Laurella Hay Secretary: Diane Corbett Public: 6 Call to Order 7:00 PM Delegation David Rafael, SCRD Senior Planner

The Senior Planner was present regarding the Temporary Use Permit and a proposed OCP amendment bylaw. See discussion under item 5.

Minutes 1. Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2012

MOTION (GC/RK): “THAT the March 28, 2012 minutes be adopted as circulated.” Carried Unanimously

The following minutes were received for information:

2. Pender Harbour/Egmont (Area A) APC Minutes of April 24, 2012 3. Planning and Development Committee Minutes of April 19, 2012 4. Ocean Beach Esplanade Stewardship Advisory Committee Minutes of April 15, 2012

New Business 5. OCP Amendment Bylaw 600.3 and TUP E-1 for 924/930 Gower Point Road, Elphinstone

5.1 The Senior Planner reviewed his report regarding this proposal to allow for an Assembly use for a residential property on Gower Point Road. The report brought the APC up to date on developments with this application since it came before the APC in November 2011. The Board had directed staff to pursue a site-specific amendment to the Official Community Plan and draft a Temporary Use Permit for the subject properties. Staff explained the formal notification and advertisement processes and procedures for a bylaw amendment; public and agency feedback were now being sought at this stage of the process. Staff planned to forward a report on this application to the Planning and Development Committee in July that will include feedback received in the public and agency consultation, suggest options for next steps and request board direction.

91

ANNEX Q

Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 23, 2012 Page 2 of 4

The Senior Planner inquired as to the Advisory Planning Commission’s views on the draft bylaw and draft Temporary Use Permit. He noted the APC’s recent stated opposition to allowing a blanket Temporary Use Permit (TUP) in Area E, and the APC’s motion in November 2011 to investigate the possibility of a Temporary Use Permit for this property. He wondered if the APC had reconsidered directing staff to look at a Temporary Use Permit. Staff responded to comments and questions. 5.2 Points raised by APC members included: • Clarification that the original motion was to see if there was an alternate way to look

at things. At the next meeting the APC wanted neighbours to have a look at the proposal. At the following meeting the APC said it did not want a TUP as a blanket use in Area E.

• I am against the Temporary Use Permit as drafted. The problem I find with the Temporary Use Permit: Areas F, E, and D just did their OCPs. They were done by a group of people who spent a ton of time doing these. Don’t understand why you are looking at TUP’s to circumvent the work done by these people and through public hearings… to circumvent the OCPs and Bylaw 310. Get the property rezoned. This is coming in the back door.

• We were considering a rezoning at the (November 2011) meeting, and didn’t like the idea… We saw some merit and asked staff to come back with recommendations… without having to rezone. We did talk about a TUP that could accommodate this use, and build in the safeguards that would make it acceptable in this community… nothing different than what could happen at any place in this community.

• Celebration House started as a business… • The people in the neighbourhood are impacted by it. When do they get their say? • The biggest craw: “ask for forgiveness, not permission” philosophy. • A problem that I have with a Temporary Use Permit in general is I have no security in

reliance on Bylaw 310. • How does the SCRD intend to address other locations in the Regional District where

there are facilities like these? • If TUP’s are renewable, how are these temporary? • I heard that the neighbourhood notification area needed to be expanded. • 50-metre notification area is not far in an area with ½ acre lots. • I think the applicant thought this was a legal use. …Would there be a difference for

private assembly as opposed to public assembly? (No.) • What is the process for complaints? (Not yet determined.)

5.3 Director Lewis noted the current zoning allows for party, wedding and bed and breakfast uses. He mentioned there was no restaurant operating there. The Director noted the RCMP recently inspected the property on the basis of the number of liquor permits issued to that location, and had no issue with what they saw. He said the goal was to make a stringent process for the Temporary Use Permit, so applicants have hurdles to jump through; when finished with the use, there would be no “mark on the map”, whereas there would be with rezoning. 5.4 Members of the public in attendance, including Diana Lloyd, Lola Olmquest, Celia Fisher, Barbara Cole, Nest Lewis, all of whom reside in the area, and an unnamed gentleman, were invited to speak to the APC. Comments and concerns raised by the public included: • (Referring to previous APC minutes) Concern: uncertainty about how a TUP process

occurs. Comment: that the Regional District seemed to disregard two recent APC motions with regard to the TUP and consultation with the neighbours.

92


• Main issue: that this is going through the back door, and this is asking for help to make it legitimate…

• That house when being built had a permit to build a house. It was built with no interior stud walls. When that was starting to happen I talked to (the APC Chair). He felt that people were trying to accommodate what was happening there… if someone breaks a zoning bylaw or contravenes it, why bother having an OCP? ….Staff and the director seem to be trying to help this person.

• Assume that a wedding goes in and there is no way people will limit the guest list… is there a special dispensation for bigger numbers than 100? What would a change of zoning do to property values along Gower Point Road? I think people don’t want to move into an area where they expect one thing and now are getting something else.

• When this building was built, it was designed as more than a house. Did the building inspector inspect it as a residence? Does the building inspector have the option to not approve an apparent use?

• Regarding the fire and health issue, it would it be advisable to put in wording that the permit holder is obliged to abide with those regulations and ordinances, with the option of losing the permit if they don’t.

• Why is the permit in years? • There don’t seem to be any business licensing and health and safety regulations (in

the TUP). It seems this would have to be written into what a TUP is. It seems to me that a TUP is a euphemism for a business… and without any regulations that other comparable commercial operations have to abide by.

MOTION (JG/RK): That the application should proceed. (3 in favor, 2 opposed) Carried

MOTION (JG/GC): That the Regional District include wording with respect to compliance regarding fire, health and safety and other agency requirements as well as insurance to indemnify the Regional District.

Carried Unanimously

6. Bylaw 310.143 and 522.15 (Temporary Use Permit Amendments)

The Senior Planner reviewed the report on Temporary Use Permit Amendments. MOTION (JG/GC): That the APC affirms its opposition to a blanket Temporary Use Permit for the entire Electoral Area. Carried Unanimously MOTION (JG/RK): That the APC recommends that staff be requested to consider expanding the notification area. Carried Unanimously

7. Town of Gibsons Draft Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan 2012 Referral

The Town of Gibsons Draft Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan 2012 was received for information.

93


Director's Report 8. The Director’s report included discussion on the following topics:

• Knotweed work parties at Chaster House in July and August • Chaster Park shoreline restoration and protection Alternate Director Hay announced that a morning beach walk would be led by Ocean Beach Esplanade Stewardship Advisory Committee on Sunday, May 27 to increase awareness of what is happening along the shoreline and hillside from Chaster House to Swallow Road.

Next Meeting Wednesday, June 27, 2012 Adjournment 8:33 PM

94

SCRD STAFF REPORT


FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner

RE: OCP/Zoning Bylaw Amendments Nos. 310.134 and 325.19

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT Bylaws 325.19 and 310.134 be forwarded to the Board for second reading;

2. AND THAT a public hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. July 18, 2012 at

Coopers Green Hall, located at 5500 Fisherman Road, Halfmoon Bay;

3. AND FURTHER THAT the Board designate a Chair and Alternate Chair to conduct the public hearing.

BACKGROUND In 2010, the Regional District received an application submitted by Brent Jorgens for an Official Community Plan amendment and Zoning Bylaw amendment affecting a portion of a property on Curran Road in Halfmoon Bay, as described below. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: District Lot 1951A, PID: 004-425-880 LOCATION: Curran Road EXISTING ZONING: RU1 – G PROPOSED ZONING: RU1– D rezone portion of G subdivision district to D EXISTING OCP DESIGNATION: Residential D/Rural Residential B/Rural PROPOSED OCP DESIGNATION: Extend Residential D & reduce Rural Residential B PARCEL AREA: ~37.3 ha AREA SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT: ~3.9 ha In 2010 the application received 1st reading and was subsequently sent for referral to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Shíshálh Nation, all of which have been received. Since that time the application has been on hold pending the upgrade of the community sewage treatment system and subsequent servicing agreement with the Infrastructure Services Division. The details on the sewage treatment upgrade have been addressed and a servicing agreement prepared and the bylaws may now move forward to a public hearing.

95

ANNEX R

DISCUSSION The subject property is located on both sides of the Sunshine Coast Highway and primarily accessed from Curran Road. A portion of the property below the highway is subject to the rezoning and OCP amendment, which would enable an application for subdivision into 12 parcels. Approximately 3.9 hectares of the property, most of the land below the highway is proposed to be rezoned for the purpose of future subdivision. OCP Designations The rezoning includes a slight OCP amendment to adjust the Residential D and Rural Residential B boundary to match the boundary on the property adjacent to the west. The Residential D (3,500 square metre recommendation) is proposed to be extended northward by 27.5 metres, which reduces the Rural Residential B area. The map below shows the current OCP land use designation boundaries:

The triangular area abutting the highway will remain Rural Residential B and within the corresponding G subdivision district to provide a sufficient buffer to the highway corridor. The remainder of the district lot above the highway will remain in the Rural designation and will not be a part of the bylaw amendment or future subdivision. All of these designations will be revisited during the on-going Halfmoon Bay OCP review.

96

Subdivision District Zoning The property currently has a ‘G’ subdivision district zoning (minimum 1.75 ha parcel area) with the exception of the southern end of the property adjacent to Curran Road, which is within the ‘C’ district (minimum 2000 m² parcel area). The applicants propose to rezone that portion of the property within the Residential D designation from subdivision district ‘G’ to ‘D’, in accordance with the recommendation within the OCP. The maximum permitted density in the ‘D’ subdivision district is one parcel per 3500 m² with a minimum parcel size of 2800 m². The map below shows the majority of the property containing the G subdivision district, with the exception of the portion of land abutting Curran Road.

If the rezoning is adopted the applicants may proceed with a subdivision of parcels with a 3,500 square metre average, with the exception of the smaller parcel on Curran Road within the C subdivision district and the triangular portion adjacent to the highway within the G subdivision district.

97

HALFMOON BAY APC At their meeting on September 28, 2010, the Halfmoon Bay Advisory Planning Commission supported this application subject to concerns about the capacity of the existing community sewer system. This application has been on hold for two years while the capacity upgrade has been negotiated with the developer of this site and the adjacent site. The applicant and the adjacent property have recently finalized an agreement with the SCRD Infrastructure Services Division to connect this subdivision to the existing community sewer system, which will be undergoing an expansion and upgrade. The upgrade to the community sewer system is based on the capacity of one dwelling per parcel. If the subsequent subdivision creates parcels large enough to be zoned for additional dwellings in the RU1 zone it is recommended that covenants be registered on title that would prevent the construction of additional dwellings due to lack of capacity within the community sewage treatment system. EXTERNAL REFERRALS The application received first reading by the SCRD Board in 2010 and referrals were sent to agencies, including the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI), Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the shíshálh Nation. The MOTI reviewed the subdivision layout that the applicants would use if the zoning is permitted and recommended some changes. Their requirements for road dedication, which were greater than the applicant initially proposed, particularly the 15 metre wide dedication along the west side of the property. This in turn reduced the amount of land available for parcels in the original proposal and several of the parcels would not meet the averaging requirements under the requested ‘D’ subdivision district. Therefore, this application was revised to include an OCP amendment to the land use designation mapping so that the same number of proposed lots may be maintained. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the existing Residential D designation be expanded into the Residential B designation by 27.5 metres. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority did not object to the zoning and OCP amendments and indicated it would have further involvement at the time of subdivision. The Shíshálh Nation requested that the applicants conduct a preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) on the property to determine if there were findings of archaeological significance on the property. The PFR was conducted and no further archaeological review is recommended. Neighbours within 100 metres of the subject property will also be notified of the application prior to public hearing and thus provided an opportunity to comment on the bylaws. Given that this application is for a minor map amendment to the OCP, it was previously considered that a referral to the School Board and District of Sechelt were not necessary.

98

SUMMARY The OCP amendment and rezoning proposed for the subject property was initially reviewed by the Board in 2010, initially in May and then again in October to include the OCP amendment. At that time the bylaws were given first reading and sent out for referrals. The bylaws were put on hold while the sewage treatment upgrade was discussed with the property developers and the Infrastructure Services Division. The treatment capacity and upgrade has been agreed to and the property owners have entered into a servicing agreement. The bylaws can now be considered for second reading and scheduling of public hearing.

__________________ Andrew Allen, Planner

99

Sunshine Coast H

wy

Brooks Rd

Trum

an R

d

Trout L

ake R

d

Red

roo

ffs Rd

Blakely Rd

Curran RdJorgensen Dr

Min

tie R

dR

uthe

rfor

d R

d

Obrian R

d

Sut

herl

and

Rd

Arm

strong Way

Silver Rd

Boulder Pl

Susan Way

Tamarack Rd

Halfmoon Bay

0 370 740185Meters

±

Bylaw 310.134: Site Location

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Part of DL 1951A

100


ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 325.19, 2010

A bylaw to amend the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment

Bylaw No. 325.19, 2010". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule ‘A3’ of Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989 is amended by

re-designating a portion of District Lot 1951A from ‘Rural Residential B’ to ‘Residential D’, as denoted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 28

TH DAY OF October 2010

READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2010

PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL DAY OF 2010

GOVERNMENT ACT, CONSIDERED IN

CONJUNCTION WITH FINANCIAL PLAN AND

APPLICABLE WASTEMANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2010 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2010 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2010 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2010

__________________________ Corporate Officer __________________________

Chair

101

Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 325.19, 2010 Page 2 of 2

______________________________________________________________________________

H:\WP\BYLAWS\325\325.19\Draft Bylaw 325.19 October 2010.doc

102

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.134, 2010 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment

Bylaw No. 310.134, 2010". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule B of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended by

rezoning a portion of District Lot 1951A from the ‘G’ subdivision district to the ‘D’ subdivision district, as denoted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 27th DAY OF MAY 2010 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2012 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012

__________________________ Corporate Officer __________________________ Chair

103

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 4, 2012

TO: Planning and Development Committee (June 21, 2012)

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: Bylaw 337.101 (Klassen for Newton) – Consideration of First Reading

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled “Bylaw 337.101 (Klassen for Newton) – Consideration of First Reading” be received; AND THAT the Board give Bylaw 337.101 (Klassen for Newton) First Reading; AND THAT prior to scheduling a public information meeting, the applicant is required to provide the following information to Regional District staff:

a) Details regarding the parking and staging are including location, number of spaces, support from property owner and method of securing the parking spaces (site plan required);

b) Confirmation from the Ministry of Health (Vancouver Coastal Health Drinking Water Officer) that the proposed supply of potable water meets provincial requirements;

c) Proof of the feasibility for a septic treatment system that will meet provincial and Regional District requirements;

d) An environmental study that determines impacts on the marine inter-tidal and shore sub-tidal areas arising from the proposal;

Prior to conducting an environmental study the applicant meets with SCRD and shíshálh Nation staff to establish the parameters for the study such as specifically considering impacts of increased boat use and moorage, presence of eel grass and presence of shellfish;

e) Details regarding proposed dock such as the size, building materials and any modifications required as a result of the environmental study;

f) Proposed design of the accommodation (artist’s rendering or sketch).

AND THAT Regional District staff send referrals to the Area A Advisory Planning Commission, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the shíshálh Nation and any others that may be identified during the referral period.

ANNEX S

<<105>

Staff Report to April 19, 2012, Planning and Development Committee Regarding Bylaw 337.101 (Klassen for Newton) Page 2 of 11

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 337\3360-20 337.101\Reports 337.101\2012-Jun-21 PDC Report 337.101.docx

BACKGROUND In April 2010, the SCRD received a rezoning application to allow for a boutique tourist accommodation with associated facilities on a small island in Blind Bay. The site is located between Hardy and Fox Islands. A survey plan shows that the island is 1870 sq m and has a small cabin (approximately 84 sq m) plus a wharf. There is a smaller island about 25 m to the east of about 232 sq m, in area which is part of the property. The site is outside of the Egmont/Pender Harbour OCP area. The current zoning is RU2 (Rural Resource).

There is an area of water designated by the Province as a UREP (Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public) reserve around the site. To the west are two marine parks; Hardy Island and Musket Island.

In March 2012, the SCRD Planning and Development Committee considered and the Board adopted the following resolution:

Board Resolution 149/12 (March 22, 2012) Recommendation No. 9 Bylaw No. 337.101 (Klassen for Newton)

THAT the staff report titled “Bylaw 337.101 (Klassen for Newton) – Conditions to be met” dated March 6, 2012 be received;

AND THAT the following information, set out in the staff report be provided to staff to prior to consideration of first reading:

identification of parking and staging area;

Ministry of Health comments on water supply; and

details regarding dock size and location;

AND THAT staff send the applicant the list of conditions, linked to the stages, as set out in the report for comment;

AND THAT staff provide a report to a future Planning and Development Committee setting out the response;

AND FURTHER THAT if required, Bylaw 337.101 be forwarded to the Board for consideration of first reading.

DISCUSSION Ministry of Health

In response to the SCRD Resolution 149/12, Vancouver Coastal Health’s (VCH) Drinking Water Officer commented:

1. VCH has not received an application for a Construction Permit (CP) and as a result have very few details regarding the proposed water supply. (Note: Guidelines for a CP was provided to SCRD staff.)

2. Mr. Klassen was sent CP Guidelines in Feb/11 and advised not to proceed installing the water system without prior approval.

3. Referencing the latest correspondence from Mr. Klassen it looks like he went ahead and installed the water system. (Note: A copy of the email was provided to SCRD staff.)

4. At this stage this proposed water supply does not meet the minimum requirements for approval and most likely will not be approved as proposed or installed. As suggested

106



previously; the applicant needs to review the Guidelines for a Construction Permit to determine if a water supply is feasible for this development.

The issue regarding potable water has not been resolved and additional work is needed by the applicant in consultation with the Drinking Water Officer. There will be a cost to providing the details for a system to meet provincial requirements. This would include information about the water supply on the property on Nelson Island and how the water line can be brought up to requirements.

The applicant discussed options with the Drinking Water Officer and there are three possible alternatives which could deliver potable water. These are:

(1) apply to the crown for an easement for the existing water line and take steps to meet provincial standard, such as size of line, if required

(2) drill your own well on site to determine if there is a water source that could meet requirements

(3) desalinate, use of a desalination plant may be able to meet requirement

Should the bylaws progress then the applicant must provide additional detail regarding potable water and confirmation from VCH that their proposal could meet provincial standards. This needs to be done prior to scheduling a public information meeting.

Details Regarding the Dock

Mr Klassen provided a draft plan (Attachment A) that shows the existing dock and two phased expansions. There is no timing for the expansions and this would depend upon the success of the facility and demand for dock space.

Staff note that a lease will be required from the province and this area should be the subject of a more detailed environmental study to ensure that there are no resources/habitats that would be damaged. The SCRD would also work with Mr Klassen to ensure that environmentally sensitive materials and methods are used to build the dock.

Should the bylaw move forward then the area where the dock is to be located could also be included in the rezoning and the size of the dock could be set out in Bylaw 337.101. The applicant will need to provide details regarding area, choice of materials and any possible alterations resulting from the environmental study.

Parking and Staging Area

Mr Klassen informed staff that he has reached a tentative agreement for an easement with the owner of 12841 Madeira Park Road to accommodate 16 parking spaces (Attachment B). The 1 hectare site is zoned C3 which allows a parking lot as a permitted use. The site contains a parking area to serve the existing building and an informal parking area at the Lagoon Road side. It is about 500m from the public dock.

Additional Information Prior to Public Information Meeting

As set out in the report to the March 15, 2012, Planning and Development Committee prior to arranging a public information meeting, the applicant provide the following information:

a) Details regarding the parking and staging are including location, number of spaces, support from property owner and method of permanently securing the parking spaces (site plan required), the agreement must run with the land;

107



b) Confirmation from the Ministry of Health (Vancouver Coastal Health Drinking Water Officer) that the proposed supply of potable water meets provincial requirements;

c) Proof of the feasibility for a septic treatment system that will meet provincial and Regional District requirements;

d) An environmental study that determines impacts on the marine inter-tidal and shore sub-tidal areas arising from the proposal;

Prior to conducting an environmental study the applicant meet with SCRD and shíshálh Nation staff to establish the parameters for the study such as specifically considering impacts of increased boat use and moorage, presence of eel grass and presence of shellfish.

e) Details regarding proposed dock such as the size, building materials and any modifications required as a result of the environmental study;

f) Proposed design of the accommodation (artist’s rendering or sketch).

The applicant confirmed that they are satisfied with these requirements and that should Bylaw 310.101 receive first reading then he will commence the work needed to meet them.

CONCLUSION If the Bylaw receives First Reading then additional consultation will be sent to the Area A Advisory Planning Commission, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the shíshálh Nation. Other consultees may be identified during the referral period. There is sufficient information for the Board to give Bylaw 337.101 first reading. A copy of the draft Bylaw 337.101 is attached (Attachment C).

108



ATTACHMENT A

109



ATTACHMENT B

110



111

ATTACHMENT C


ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 337.101, 2010 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

PART A - CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 337.101, 2010".

PART B - AMENDMENT

2. Insert “C2B Tourist Commercial B” in Section 501 (1) in the appropriate location; 3. Insert the following in Section 518 Table II within the part titled “Commercial”

Column I Class of Building or Use

Column II Parking Spaces

Column III Loading Spaces

All uses permitted in the C2B Zone

15 1 bus unloading space

4. Amend Part VIII by adding Sections 811B.1 to 811B.5 as follows:

C2B ZONE (TOURIST COMMERCIAL B) Permitted Uses 811B.1 Except as permitted in Part V, land, buildings and structures in the

C2B zone shall be used for the following purposes only: (a) motel (b) bed and breakfast inn; (c) lodge (d) one dwelling unit or single family dwelling per parcel. (e) auxiliary uses to (a), (b) or (c) to be restaurant, marina,

assembly use;

112



Prohibition 811B.2 Notwithstanding Section 811B.1 the maximum number of

bedrooms shall be 8 for uses (a) and (b) and (c). 811B.3 Notwithstanding Section 811B.1 the maximum number of

bedrooms for a dwelling unit or single family dwelling is 2 where uses a, b or c are present.

811B.3 The maximum dock area, independent of any pedestrian access, shall be 700 linear feet and 2100 square feet.

Siting Requirements 811B.4 No structure, parking, loading or storage area may be located

within 5 metres of a parcel line. Parcel Coverage 811B.5 With the exception of public utility buildings and structures on

parcels less than 100 square metres, the parcel coverage of all buildings and structures shall not exceed 25 percent.

5. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 is amended by rezoning PID 015-773-779, District Lot 5759, Group 1 New Westminster District, from RU2 (Rural Resource) to C2B (Tourist Commercial B), as denoted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

6. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 is amended by rezoning a portion of unzoned ocean to C2B (Tourist Commercial B), as denoted on Appendix ‘B’ to this Bylaw

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF 2012 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012

__________________________ Corporate Officer _________________________ Chair

113



114



Appendix B to Bylaw 337.101

____________________ Chair

____________________ Corporate Officer

Amend Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional Bylaw No. 337 by rezoning a portion of ocean from unzoned to C2B (Tourist Commercial B), as denoted on Appendix ‘B’ to this Bylaw

115

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.135\Reports and Resolutions 310.135\2012-Jun-21 PDC 310.135.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: BYLAW 375.11 AND BYLAW 310.135 (MORRISSEY AND OTHERS)

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled “Bylaw 375.11 and Bylaw 310.135 (Morrissey and Others)”, dated June 8, 2012, be received; AND THAT with respect to Bylaw 375.11 and 310.135 the Regional District Board direct staff to write to each applicant to inform them of the concerns raised regarding the lack of registration of the covenants required; AND THAT each property owner be invited to submit a new rezoning application for their own property; AND THAT the Regional District be the applicant for a new Official Community Plan amendment application to replace Bylaw 375.11. BACKGROUND The bylaws are intended to allow for 12 properties in the Byng/Pixton/Firburn Rd area of Roberts Creek to have subdivision potential as a means of allowing the owners to generate sufficient funds to upgrade and improve substandard roads to meet Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure standards. The bylaws were the subject of two public hearings, the first on November 23, 2010 and the second on December 13, 2011. The bylaws received 3rd reading on January 26, 2012. The owners of the properties are required to register covenants prior to the Board considering adopting the bylaws.

The covenants would require that at the time of subdivision an area would be set aside on the property in a natural state (no land alteration/removal of vegetation) and that a drainage plan would be developed.

To date the regional District has received copies of registered covenants for five of the properties. Two of the applicants, Aaron Morrissey and Mike Kidd, have expressed frustration about the lack of progress and have requested that the Regional District review the requirement for the covenants to be registered on all properties before the bylaws could be adopted (Attachment A). Mr. Kidd and Mr. Morrissey submitted subdivision applications in anticipation of the bylaws being adopted and have placed registration of the covenants on hold due to financial requirements from their lenders. They both consider that it is unwise to spend the funds required to meet the lenders’ requirements if the bylaws will not be adopted.

116

ANNEX T

Staff Report to Corporate & Administrative Services Committee Regarding Voting Strengths Page 2 of 4


DISCUSSION Staff met with Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Kidd to discuss their concerns. Staff spoke with several of the other applicants to determine if some are not willing to register the covenants.

While none of them were willing to confirm in writing that this is the case, it is apparent that there is concern about the covenants.

One significant item is the perceived inequity of the costs faced by those property owners (Mr. Kidd and Mr. Morrissey) closer to the developed road network; they are considered to face less cost than others. In part this could be due to requirements placed on them by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding how much of the road network they will be required to develop.

Another concern is that it may be a financial burden to have a covenant on title when subdivision is unlikely to take place for several years or at all.

A third concern is that property values may be assessed higher if there is subdivision potential that again would not be realized for many years or at all.

While the financial concerns and possible disparities in costs faced by each applicant are not a planning matter it is likely that one or more of the applicants will not register the required covenants and the bylaws will not be able to proceed to adoption.

It is currently not possible for the Regional District to adopt the bylaws unless the covenants are registered on all properties. It is also not possible to adopt the bylaws on a site specific basis (i.e. for each property as the convent is registered). The bylaws consider all 12 properties as one site and legally they cannot be separated out and now treated individually.

New Information Received after the Public Hearing

Staff are concerned that the request made by two of the applicants for the Board to consider a means to break an impasse constitutes new information that will require a new public hearing. However there does not appear to be an alternative.

Options

1) No change

The concerns raised by Mr Morrissy and Mr Kidd are unfortunate, however this is not a matter for the Regional District to resolve. The applicants need to work out a solution and to move forward as one group. This was the intention when the application was submitted, initially for 7 properties and then expanded to 12. The applicants may be able to resolve their concerns without resorting to action from the Regional District.

2) Cancel the Bylaws

The Regional District, at some point, can advise all applicants that due to inactivity the bylaws may be cancelled by the Regional District. Bylaw 522 (Procedures and Fees) sets out the process for this which includes a letter to all applicants advising of this and allowing them a period to respond. The trigger is 6 months of inactivity and a further 3 months after the letter goes out.

Staff can send a letter to all applicants advising them of this. If there is no resolution then staff can request that the Board cancel the bylaws. Those who have registered the covenant should to be allowed to discharge it, thus removing it from the title.

117



3) Rescind Third Reading, Schedule a Third Public Hearing, Remove the Covenant Requirements

One alternative is to remove the requirement for the covenant to be registered. However, this was an integral part of the rezoning process and to do so would require that a new public hearing be held to consider the community’s views of this change. Should this be the chosen option then the public hearing could be held on (Find a date at RC Hall or School in July).

Staff consider that there is no need for a new public information meeting, however notice should also be sent to the RC APC and RC OCPC to allow them to have input into the hearing.

The main issue would be that the Regional District would no longer be able to secure the environmental benefits of the 20% no disturbance area and not be able to secure a drainage plan. This would also not address the cost inequity concerns raised by some of the applicants.

4) Rescind Third Reading, Give Bylaw 310.135 amended Second Reading and Schedule a Third Public Hearing

Bylaw 310.135 could be amended so that it only includes those who have registered or have shown a commitment to move forward. This will still bind these

5) a) Request New Rezoning Applications

Each property owner could be requested to submit a separate application. They would then be considered as a package (such as all referred at the same time and considered at public hearings on the same date/location). However each application would be a unique bylaw thus could be considered for adoption independently when the required covenants are registered.

Staff consider that there is no need for a public information meeting as the individual bylaws would be almost identical to those already considered at two information meeting s and two public hearings.

b) SCRD could be the applicant for the OCP Amendment

The OCP amendment that allows for the rezoning could be over seen by the Regional District. It may need a slight amendment to note the requirement for a drainage plan on a site by site basis.

6) Regional District Create a Service Area to Improve Road Conditions to Ministry Standards

Prior to receiving the OCP and rezoning application, the Regional District worked with the local residents with the objective of establishing a service area to build the roads to Ministry standards. Due to an inability to gather contributions from all the residents to pay for a feasibility study, this work ceased.

The Regional District could approach the property owners to see if they would be willing to revisit this option in light of the issues currently raised about the rezoning application. The advantage of a service area approach is that the issue of equity and timing of road building would be dealt with.

A feasibility study would be needed to determine the costs of building the roads; the mechanism, such as taxation, for recovering the costs would need to be determined, and an approval process is required (including approval from the province for establishing the service).

118



If the Board considers revisiting this option then staff will provide a report setting out the processes and repayment options in more detail. The Board should cancel the bylaws prior to establishing the service area.

CONCLUSION It is becoming apparent that there are issues relating to the ability for the applicants to meet the requirements to register covenants that would allow for the Regional District Board to consider adopting Bylaw 375.11 and Bylaw 310.135. While staff have not received any written confirmation that any of the applicants will not register the required covenant, two of the applicants are concerned enough that they have approached staff to seek a solution form the Regional District Board.

Staff consider that a letter should be sent to all of the applicants noting the concern, that new rezoning applications be requested from each owner and that the SCRD take responsibility for moving the Official Community Plan amendment forward.

119

David Rafael

From: MikeSent: May-17-12 4:48 PMTo: David RafaelCc:Subject: bylaws 375.11 & 310.135

Categories:

Hello David,Please pass this along to the Board of Directors.

Mike Kidd, lot 5, Pixton Rd.

I would like to ask the board to consider changes to the adoption requirements of re-zoning of properties inthis area known as upper Byng Rd.

Currently ALL 10 property owners need to register covenants on their properties for a 20% undisturbedarea” BEFORE adoption of a zoning change can happen. This has proved to be a fatal flaw in moving forwardwith this project.A few property owners have indicated they will not sign at this time as they do not want a covenant registeredon their property now, as they may not be ready to subdivide for years, also some banks require full surveys,appraisals etc. before they will sign off on a covenant of this type. The cost to provide the bank with therequired information can easily exceed $4000.00, some property owners do not have the means to spend thatamount of money now and then not get to the subdivision stage for several years while they wait for all theirneighbours to be ready to build roads all at the same time. It has become clear that we cannot get all partiesto sign the covenants at this time.

Lots 4 & 5, (which cover the length of Pixton rd.) are both ready to subdivide now. We have taken all thesteps to move forward only to realize now that by the lack of only one person registering the covenant, theentire project we and the SCRD have worked on for the last 2.5 years is potentially dead.

We have gone through the entire series of boards from ACP, OCP, and of course SCRD, and have passed thirdreading.Both ourselves and the SCRD have invested a considerable amount of time and money into this project.

We have also taken out permits with MOT and now have our potential road building plans, we also have roadbuilders ready to start.We have taken out Ministry of Health permits, passed perk tests, and have the required paperwork to moveforward with them.We have ordered wells drilled for end of May.We have also taken out subdivision permits with the SCRDWe have cleared land and made preparations to start widening the road as required by MOT

I would like to ask the board to consider an alternative process to get this project underway.

1

ATTACHMENT A

120

One option would be to allow each property to re-zone individually, this way the people that are ready can

proceed and the roads can get built immediately.

Another option would be to remove the requirement to leave a 20% undisturbed area and in turn would

negate the need for the covenants and the rezoning could go through for all the 10 properties now.

This proposal has come much too far to let fall apart now, and the need to fix these dangerous and rapidly

deteriorating roads will continue to be a headache for all of us.

Thank you, Mike KiddLot 51041 Firburn Rd.

2

121

David Rafael

From: Morrissey, Aaron [.Sent: May-17-12 9:38 PMTo: David RafaelCc:Subject: Bylaw s!b.11 $ 310.135

Categories:

Hello David,Please pass this along to the Board of Directors.

Aaron Morrissey, lot #4, Pixton rd.

I would like to ask the board to consider changes to the adoption requirements of re-zoning Bylaws375.11 & 310.310.

We have a minor problem with the way the covenants have to be applied to all ten propertiesAs it is now all ten owners have to sign off on the covenants before the adoption is complete. This iscausing a lot of headache, as some owners who are further down the road, are reluctant to signcovenants on there property, years before they can subdivide.

Putting covenants on a property is very expensive process($4000), and some owners aren’t ready tospend this kind of money until they subdivide. This has caused a temporary gridlock of the roadbuilding process.

We have been through the APC, OPC and many public hearings over the last two and a half years.We would appreciate help in completing the final adoption of this Bylaw.

Lot#4 and #5 have already begun the subdivision process. We have taken out application fromMOT,MOH, and the SCRD. We have our PLNA from MOT and the only thing holding us up is theadoption from the SCRD.

Two options are possible. We have all owners sign there covenants at time of individual subdivision.This way anyone who is ready to subdivide can proceed immediately.Another option would be to remove the requirement to leave a 20% undisturbed area and in turnwould negate the need for the covenants and the rezoning could go through for all the 10 propertiesnow.

Everyone that is involved with this application has many hours, and thousands of dollars involved,including the SCRD. We cant let this application fall apart after all the years off work that has beenput into it.

ThanksAaron Morrisseylot#42284 Pixton rd

1

122

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 13, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee June 21, 2012 FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Bylaw 310.141 - Implementation of the West Howe Sound OCP Recommendation

1. THAT Bylaw Amendment 310.141 be forwarded to the Board for Third Reading and Adoption.

Background On October 27, 2011the SCRD Board adopted the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan (OCP), which repealed the previous West Howe Sound OCP: Bylaw 304. A plan to introduce zoning bylaw amendments was introduced to conduct a timely follow up to implement many of the policies within the new OCP. There are 20 different land use designations within the West Howe Sound OCP and at this time eight of the designations have proposed zoning changes. Of those eight designations, four apply to public lands; both SCRD parks and Crown Land and the other four apply to various private lands. In January of this year Planning staff drafted a bylaw with zoning changes to implement the policies within the OCP. This bylaw subsequently received first reading from the Board on January 26th and was also sent to referral agencies for comment. Referrals were sent to The Wes Howe Sound APC and the West Howe Sound Community Association, which doubled as a public information meeting. Planning staff were in attendance at the community association meeting to point out the zoning changes and explain the rationale for the proposed changes. There were several questions from those in attendance at the meeting and the response was generally positive. Referrals were also sent to external agencies including the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Town of Gibsons, all of whom support the bylaws. The Squamish Nation was also sent and referral and then subsequently notified of the up-coming public hearing; no response to the referral was received. The Squamish Nation did not respond to referrals regarding the development of the West Howe Sound OCP.

123

ANNEX U

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing for Bylaw 310.141 was held June 12, 2012 at Eric Cardinall Hall. Five people attended the hearing and two spoke in favour of the proposed changes and in particular the changes proposed to their property on Boyle Road and no one in attendance spoke in opposition to the bylaw. A report of the public hearing is attached to this report for review. CONCLUSION The proposed changes are consistent with recommendations in the OCP, which had a strong level of support when adopted in October of last year. This implementation process followed on the heels of the OCP adoption with the intent of maintaining the level of support witnessed at the public hearing and adoption of the OCP. The public hearing for this particular bylaw was lightly attended, however this is considered a sign of a successful bylaw implementation process. Both the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission and Community Association were supportive of the zoning changes and it is now recommended that Bylaw 310.141 be considered for Third Reading and Adoption.

_______________________ Andrew Allen, Planner

124

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT June 12, 2012

REPORT OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT ERIC CARDINALL HALL, SHIRLEY MACEY PARK

930 CHAMBERLIN ROAD, WEST HOWE SOUND, BC

“West Howe Sound Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012” PRESENT: Chair, Area E Director L. Lewis Alternate Chair, Area F Director L. Turnbull ALSO PRESENT: Planner A. Allen Recording Secretary J. Stevens Public 4 CALL TO ORDER The public hearing for “West Howe Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012” was called to order at 7:05 pm. L. Lewis, Chair The Chair introduced Board members and staff in attendance and read prepared remarks with respect to the procedures to be followed at the public hearing. The Chair then indicated that following the conclusion of the public hearing the SCRD Board may, without further notice or hearing, adopt or defeat the bylaw or alter and then adopt the bylaw providing the alteration does not alter the use or increase the density. He then asked Andrew Allen, Planner, Planning and Development, to introduce “West Howe Sound Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012” DESCRIPTION OF BYLAW Andrew Allen, Planner “West Howe Sound Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012” applies to land within the West How Sound OCP area. The proposed changes are a result of recommendations made within the West Howe Sound OCP, which was adopted in October of 2011. There are 20 different land use designations within the West Howe Sound OCP and at this time eight of the designations have proposed zoning changes. Of those eight designations, four apply to public lands; both SCRD parks and Crown Land and the other four apply to various private lands.

125

There are two types of proposed changes; mapping changes where a property may have a new zone appointed or text changes where an existing zone in Bylaw 310 has new wording added to reflect the specific recommendations within the West Howe Sound OCP. Map changes may apply to both land use zones and subdivision districts and text changes add West Howe Sound specific stipulations to existing zones. The table on the wall indicates proposed zoning changes. Some of the changes address zoning anomalies that have occurred over the years, particularly where properties have been included and excluded from the ALR; while others provide limited subdivision possibilities in Granthams, Hopkins and the Boyle Road area. There are proposed changes to the RU2 zone, where the number of dwellings on a parcel is restricted to two with 1.5 hectares of land required to qualify for the second dwelling. The RU4-Z zone is proposed for the large Crown owned district lots within the OCP area, to ensure that these parcels remain resourced based, rather than sold for the purpose of residential subdivision. The suggested zoning changes are derived directly from the policies found within the OCP. The planner pointed out the properties which are subject to the bylaw amendment and referred to the maps on the wall for additional reference. The Planner concluded his remarks and passed the Hearing back to the Chair. Chair The Chair called a first time for comments regarding “West Howe Sound Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012”. Ms. Leeza Singleton & Mr. Craig Singleton 1158 and 1154, Boyle Road Gibsons, BC Ms. Singleton provided a brief history of their property and their desire to subdivide. Mr. and Ms. Singleton both stated that they are in favour of the changes contained within Bylaw 310.141. Chair The Chair called a second time for further submissions. Mr. Ian Winn joined the meeting at 7:25 pm. The Chair advised Mr. Winn that he had just called a second time for further submissions and asked Mr. Winn if he had any comments.

126

Mr. Ian Winn 1990 Thornbrough Road Gibsons, BC Mr. Winn stated that he is in support of Bylaw 310.141. CLOSURE The Chair called a third and final time for further submission. Hearing no further comments, the Chair declared the public hearing for proposed “West Howe Sound Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012” closed at 7:28 pm. The Chair thanked those present for attending the public hearing. Certified fair and correct: Prepared by: _______________________________ ______________________________ L. Lewis, Chair J. Stevens, Recording Secretary

127

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.141, 2012

A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987

The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

PART A – CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.141, 2012.

PART B – AMENDMENT

2. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 by rezoning lands within the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan area, as shown within the heavy outlined area on the attached map appendices:

a) Appendix 1 of Bylaw 310.141, 2012 shows an excerpt of the existing Schedule A (land use zoning) of Bylaw 310, this portion of Schedule A is hereby repealed and replaced with Appendix 2 of Bylaw 310.141, 2012, which shows new land use zones, within the heavy outlined area.

b) Appendix 3 of Bylaw 310.141, 2012 shows an excerpt of the existing Schedule B

(subdivision districts) of Bylaw 310, this portion of Schedule B is hereby repealed and replaced with Appendix 4 of Bylaw 310.141, 2012, which shows new subdivision districts, within the heavy outlined area.

3. Section 405 Minimum Parcel Size Area Exceptions is amended by:

Adding E2 to section 405 (2) as follows: “the subject property is within the C, D, E, E1, E2, F, G or I subdivision district” and

4. Section 406 Subdivision Districts is amended by: Inserting new E2 subdivision district in sub-section (5A) with the following text: “The minimum size of a parcel created within the E2 subdivision district shall be 8000 square metres.”

128

5. The RU1 Zone (Rural One) is amended by: Adding the following text to Table III in section 1001.1(6) after sub-section c: (d) Notwithstanding (a-c) the following shall apply within the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan boundary, as outlined on Appendix 2 to Bylaw 310.141: (i) Less than 8000 square metres (ii) 8000 square metres to 1.75

hectares (iii) Greater than 1.75 hectares

One single family dwelling

One single family dwelling and one auxiliary dwelling unit Two single family dwellings or one duplex

6. The RU2 Zone (Rural Two) is amended by: Adding the following to Table IV in section 1011.7(1) after sub-section c: (d) Notwithstanding (a-c) the following shall apply within the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan boundary, as outlined on Appendix 2 to Bylaw 310.141:

(i) Less than 1.5 hectares (ii) Greater than 1.5 hectares

One single family dwelling Up to a maximum of two single family dwellings or one duplex

129

PART C – ADOPTION

READ A FIRST TIME this 26th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

READ A SECOND TIME this 24th DAY OF MAY, 2012

PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 12th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2012

READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012

ADOPTION this DAY OF 2012

___________________________ Corporate Officer

____________________________ Chair

130

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Cemetery Rd

Nor

th R

d

Po

rt M

ello

n H

wy

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Gibsons Way

Cha

mbe

rlin

Rd

Po

int

Rd

Parker Rd

Skylin

e R

d

Ste

wa

rt R

d

Ym

ca R

d

Tw

in C

reeks R

d

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Sm

ith R

d

Sh

aw

Rd

Wharf Rd

Sto

rvo

l d R

d

Central Ave

Burns Rd

Williamsons Landing Rd

Abbs R

d

Fis

he

r R

d

Walk

about R

d

Harvey Rd

Sentin

el Rd

Bridgeman Rd

Forbes Rd

Jo

hn

son

Rd

Cou

rtney R

d

Lan

gd

ale

Rd

Jens

en

Rd

Esperanza Rd

Gra

dy

Rd

Th

om

pson

Rd

Davis Rd

Sargent R

d

Su

nnycre

st R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Tra

nt R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

Elphinstone Ave

Feeney R

d

Ea

gle

cre

st

Dr

Langdale Ferry Terminal

Tw

in Isle

s D

r

Woodland Ave

Vis

ta F

jord

Rd

So

am

es R

d

Owen Rd

Newman Rd

Chadw

ick Rd

Wray Rd

Ruffu

m R

d

Cart

wri

gh

t R

d

Arb

oretum D

rive

Farnham Rd

Poplar Lane

Kiwanis Way

Sp

yg

lass P

l

David

son R

d

Hopkins R

d

Woodland

Pike Rd

Chu

rch R

d

Neil R

d

Jacks Lane

Stella Maris Rd

Goodwin Rd

Bridgeman Pl

Ste

wa

r t R

d

Brid

gem

an R

d

Ste

wa

rt R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

��W1

��RU2

��R1

��RU3

��R1

��RU3

��PA2

��RU2

��PA2

��IR

��RU1

��RU2

��RU1

��RU1

��R2

��I5B

��I1

��I3

��I2

��RU1

��RU1

��RU1

��RU3

��RU1

��PA2

��RU2 ��W2

��I4

��RU3

��RU2

��RU4B

��RU3

��I5

��I1A

��RM2

��I4A

��RU1B

��I4

��IR

��PA1

��C2

Bylaw 310Schedule A

Land Use Zoning

EXISTING

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICTProperty Information and Mapping Services

UTM Zone 10, NAD83-----------------------------------------Electoral Area: Area F-----------------------------------------Date: January, 2012

This information has been compiled by the Sunshine Coast Regional District using data derived from a number of sources withvarying levels of accuracy. The Sunshine Coast Regional Districtdisclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this information0 200 400100 Meters

Scale 1:5,000 West Howe Sound OCP Area

Zoning

Parcels

ALR

Parks

Roads

Appendix 1To Bylaw 310.141

131

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Cemetery Rd

Nor

th R

d

Po

rt M

ello

n H

wy

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Cha

mbe

rlin

Rd

Po

int

Rd

Parker Rd

Skylin

e R

d

Ste

wa

rt R

d

Ym

ca R

d

Tw

in C

reeks R

d

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Sm

ith R

d

Wharf Rd

Sto

rvo

l d R

d

Central Ave

Burns Rd


Abbs R

d

Fis

he

r R

d

Walk

about R

d

Harvey Rd

Sentin

el Rd

Bridgeman Rd

Forbes Rd

Jo

hn

son

Rd

Cou

rtney R

d

Lan

gd

ale

Rd

Jens

en

Rd

Esperanza Rd

Gra

dy

Rd

Th

om

pson

Rd

Sargent R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Tra

nt R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

Elphinstone Ave

Feeney R

d

Ea

gle

cre

st

Dr


Tw

in Isle

s D

r

Woodland Ave

Vis

ta F

jord

Rd

So

am

es R

d

Owen Rd

Newman Rd

Chadw

ick Rd

Wray Rd

Ruffu

m R

d

Cart

wri

gh

t R

d

Arb

oretum D

rive

Sp

yg

lass P

l

David

son R

d

Hopkins R

d

Woodland

Pike Rd

Chu

rch R

d

Neil R

d

Jacks Lane

Stella Maris Rd

Goodwin Rd

Bridgeman Pl

Ste

wa

r t R

d

Brid

gem

an R

d

Ste

wa

rt R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

��W1

��RU2

��RU3

��R1

��R1

��RU3

��RU2

��PA2

��PA2

��IR

��RU2

��RU4A

��RU2

��RU1

��RU4A

��RU1

��RU1

��R2

��I5B

��I1

��RU4A

��I3

��I2

��RU1

��RU1��RU4A

��RU3

��PA2

��RU2 ��W2

��I4

��RU1

��RU4B

��RU3

��I5

��I1A

��RM2

��I4A

��RU1B

��I4

��IR

��PA1

��C2





Zoning

Parcels

ALR

Parks

Roads


Chair

Corporate Officer

Bylaw 310Schedule A

Land Use Zoning

PROPOSED


132

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Cemetery Rd

Marine D

r

Nor

th R

d

Po

rt M

ello

n H

wy

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Gibsons Way

Cha

mbe

rlin

Rd

Po

int

Rd

Skylin

e R

d

Parker Rd

Ste

wa

rt R

d

Ym

ca R

d

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Tw

in C

reeks R

d

Sm

ith R

d

Sh

aw

Rd

Wharf Rd

Sto

rvo

l d R

d

Central Ave

Burns Rd

Abbs R

d


Fis

he

r R

d

Walk

about R

d

Harvey Rd

Sentin

el Rd

Bridgeman Rd

Forbes Rd

Jo

hn

son

Rd

Sargent R

d

Cou

rtney R

d

Lan

gd

ale

Rd

Jens

en

Rd

Esperanza Rd

Gra

dy

Rd

Th

om

pson

Rd

Davis Rd

Su

nnycre

st R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Tra

nt R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

Elphinstone Ave

Feeney R

d


Tw

in Isle

s D

r

Woodland Ave

Vis

ta F

jord

Rd

So

am

es R

d

Owen Rd

S Fle

tcher R

d

Newman Rd

Chadw

ick Rd

Wray Rd

Ruffu

m R

dC

art

wri

ght

Rd

Arb

oretum D

rive

Farnham Rd

Marine Cres

Poplar Lane

Kiwanis Way

David

son R

d

Hopkins R

d

Woodland

Pike Rd

Chu

rch R

d

Neil R

d

Jacks Lane

Stella Maris Rd

Goodwin Rd

Bridgeman Pl

Ste

wa

rt R

dS

tew

art

Rd

Brid

gem

an R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

��I

��G

��C

��C

��G

��F

��G

��F

��F

��F

��IR

��F

��F

��G

��D

��G

��F

��F

��G

��IR

��C

��B

Bylaw 310Schedule B

Subdivision Zoning

EXISTING





Subdivision Zoning

Parcels

ALR

Parks

Roads


133

�-G

�-Z�-Z

�-I

�-I

�-I

�-I

�-I

�-E2

�-Z

�-I

�-C

�-Z

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Cemetery Rd

Marine D

r

Nor

th R

d

Po

rt M

ello

n H

wy

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Cha

mbe

rlin

Rd

Po

int

Rd

Skylin

e R

d

Parker Rd

Ste

wa

rt R

d

Ym

ca R

d

Gilm

ou

r R

d

Tw

in C

reeks R

d

Sm

ith R

d

Wharf Rd

Sto

rvo

l d R

d

Central Ave

Burns Rd


Fis

he

r R

d

Walk

about R

d

Harvey Rd

Sentin

el Rd

Bridgeman Rd

Forbes Rd

Jo

hn

son

Rd

Cou

rtney R

d

Lan

gd

ale

Rd

Jens

en

Rd

Esperanza Rd

Gra

dy

Rd

Th

om

pson

Rd

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Tra

nt R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

Elphinstone Ave

Feeney R

d


Tw

in Isle

s D

r

Woodland Ave

Vis

ta F

jord

Rd

So

am

es R

d

Owen Rd

Newman Rd

Chadw

ick Rd

Wray Rd

Ruffu

m R

dC

art

wri

ght

Rd

Arb

oretum D

rive

Marine Cres

David

son R

d

Hopkins R

d

Woodland

Pike Rd

Chu

rch R

d

Neil R

d

Stella Maris Rd

Goodwin Rd

Bridgeman Pl

Ste

wa

rt R

dS

tew

art

Rd

Brid

gem

an R

d

St A

ndre

ws R

d

Bo

yle

Rd

�-G

�-C

�-C

�-G

�-F

�-G

�-F

�-F

�-F

�-IR

�-E2

�-F

�-G

�-F

�-F

�-IR

�-C

�-C

Bylaw 310Schedule B

Subdivision Zoning


Chair

Corporate Officer

PROPOSED





Subdivision Zoning

Parcels

ALR

Parks

Roads


134

...Field Road: Lights off at appointed time. Mason Road yard: We intended to, employee assigned task...

Documents

Transcript of ...Field Road: Lights off at appointed time. Mason Road yard: We intended to, employee assigned task...